ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Government Estate

David Mowat: What progress the Government have made in response to the 2010 report on use of the Government estate.

Francis Maude: We are committed to saving money by, among other things, cutting our occupancy of property in London and elsewhere. We are consolidating into freehold space wherever practical. Since the general election, the central civil estate in London has been reduced by about 22%. Across the country we have cut estate costs by nearly £500 million and we are on track to deliver a further £80 million by the end of the current financial year.

David Mowat: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Smith report identified that 15,000 jobs could be moved from London to the English regions by 2015. That would first of all save money, but also correct the spending imbalance by which London has the highest current spending per head of any English region. Is there more we can do to make swifter progress?

Francis Maude: The Smith recommendations were, so far as I can see, made on an assumption of stable public sector employment. Owing to the size of the public sector deficit that the coalition Government inherited, public sector employment has been falling since then by more than 400,000, and the size of the civil service is down by about 73,000 since the election, so the priority has been to reduce the amount of property we occupy, rather than moving employment from one part of the country to another.

Andrew Gwynne: The problems with finding savings from the Government estate are that many Departments are finding it difficult to surrender leaseholds early and to find private sector businesses to take up surplus accommodation, and are even having problems with selling freeholds because of
	the state of the property market, meaning that it is very unlikely that the full potential savings of £830 million will be met before 2020.

Francis Maude: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right on that. Actually, vacant space in the central Government estate is running at about 2.5%, compared with the national average of over 10% across the public and private sectors, so in fact Government Departments and agencies are not finding it impossible to surrender leases—they are doing so very effectively—or to sell properties where that makes sense, although our preference is to occupy the freeholds and get out of the leaseholds.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Peter Bone: rose—

Mr Speaker: Ah, a Northamptonshire choice. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

Philip Hollobone: What does the Minister expect the footprint of the Government estate to be by the end of the present Parliament compared with May 2010?

Francis Maude: Certainly, so far as the central Government estate in London is concerned, it will be down by well over a quarter, but that is only the beginning, because obviously property disposals and vacancies take time, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) just referred to; that cannot be done literally overnight. We have made considerable progress already, however, as it is down by nearly a quarter and there will be much more to come.

Peter Bone: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) did not have the nerve to suggest that Government should relocate to Kettering, because he knows the place to come to is 50 minutes from London and it is Wellingborough. Will the Minister encourage Departments to move to Wellingborough, especially the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister?

Francis Maude: I can imagine that no relocation destination would be more popular with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister than my hon. Friend’s constituency—or failing that, perhaps the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

Government Statistics

John Robertson: What steps he is taking to promote public trust in Government statistics.

Nick Hurd: Public trust in Government statistics is incredibly important. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all official statistics in the UK are now subject to independent scrutiny by the UK Statistics Authority. As he also knows, that is now independent of Government and directly accountable to Parliament, rather than through Ministers.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but have the Government not failed to respond to the Public Administration Committee recommendations because of the Prime Minister’s numerous breaches of the code of practice for Government statistics?

Nick Hurd: I am not aware of any failings in communicating with the Committee. The Prime Minister has responded to those suggestions directly and to the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority very vigorously, which is the right and proper way of approaching it.

Bernard Jenkin: May I tell my hon. Friend how much I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General when he said in opposition that we should end the practice of pre-release—the release of statistics to Ministers and officials hours or even days before they are released to the public, so that they can be spun? Would it not increase trust in statistics if the Government adopted the views of the UK Statistics Authority and the Public Administration Committee and ended this practice, as they have been in many other jurisdictions?

Nick Hurd: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this, as does the Committee he chairs. He will know that we inherited a regime that had, rightly, been tightened up, with arrangements embedded in legislation. He will also know that we reviewed the arrangements when we came into power and took the view that the right balance had been struck. The arguments are well rehearsed and although I know that he does not like the message, we are not going to change the arrangements and I do not think that that message is going to change.

Chi Onwurah: Let us look at cyber-statistics. In answer to my parliamentary question, the Minister put the cost of cybercrime at £27 billion, but that turns out to be a 2010 “guestimate” from defence company Detica. The National Audit Office misused Cambridge university figures, managing to confuse pounds with dollars. We all know that online crime is rising, but the Government rely on outdated third-party figures. Is he surprised that the public do not trust the Government’s efforts to fight cybercrime, given that they clearly cannot even measure it?

Nick Hurd: The Government take the whole issue of cybercrime incredibly seriously. I am not sure that we are going to take any lectures on trust in public statistics from the Labour party; the reason the UK Statistics Authority is in place is because public trust in Government statistics cratered after 13 years of Labour, for ever associated with the dark arts of spin and media manipulation.

Government Contracts: SMEs

Nick de Bois: What steps he is taking to ensure that more small and medium-sized companies win business from Government.

Julian Sturdy: What steps he is taking to ensure that more small and medium-sized companies win business from Government.

Mary Glindon: What steps he has taken to address barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises participating in Government procurement.

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to open up central Government Departments to partnerships with small and medium-sized enterprises.

Chloe Smith: It is this Government’s policy to dismantle the barriers facing small and medium-sized companies to ensure that they can compete for contracts on a level playing field and grow. I refer the House to the letter I sent last month to all hon. Members, in which I set out some of the progress we have made and the further steps we will be taking to ensure that Departments continue to increase their spend with small companies.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and I welcome her reforms to Government procurement processes, which are a marked improvement on the previous Government’s efforts. However, will she share her Department’s best practice with local government, which is still issuing cumbersome and complicated tenders that are excluding so many SMEs from competing for business because of the amount of time that they have to put into them?

Chloe Smith: I welcome that support from my hon. Friend, who is extremely active on these matters in trying to secure more jobs, particularly in his constituency. He rightly says that we have a clear job, which we will do: to transfer the successful procurement reforms that we have made in central Government to the wider public sector. We are accepting the recommendations made in Lord Young’s “Growing Your Business” report, which deals with the complexity, cost and inconsistency that can face small businesses in the wider public sector.

Julian Sturdy: The Minister will doubtless be aware of the success of Redfern Travel, from my constituency, which saw off French competition to win a billion-pound contract. How will the Government’s reforms help other British businesses to achieve similar David and Goliath-type victories over multinational corporations?

Chloe Smith: I also welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment in his constituency to SMEs. I note that support has come from, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, which says that Government policy continues to move in the right direction in this area. The forthcoming consultation, to which I referred, will make that public sector procurement market more accessible to SMEs, by requiring all contracts over £10,000 to be listed in one place—on Contracts Finder, for example. I also draw his attention to an SME friendliness tool that we published in June. I urge all colleagues to use that to hold contractors in their constituencies to account.

Mary Glindon: What is the Minister doing to promote the use of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 to help small businesses and social enterprises to win public sector contracts?

Chloe Smith: I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point and she will know that we have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) to act as an ambassador on this matter; it is very important. The message that we need to get through to contractors, who are of course the ones making such arrangements, is that they must have regard to the taxpayer and value for money at all times, but that other such issues might also be used to benefit those for whom they are contracting.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware that the truth is that the Government are becoming more and more dependent on big companies—private sector companies such as G4S, Serco and Capita? Is she aware that a recent Fujitsu-sponsored poll of small and medium-sized enterprises showed that 26% find it more difficult to get contracts with the Government and that 6% think that it is easier?

Chloe Smith: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s focus on this matter. He will welcome our review on some of the companies he has named, but it is most important to say that the Government are on track to deliver our aspiration of awarding 25% of central Government business to SMEs by 2015. We look for that directly and through the supply chain, and that is what helps us to procure for growth in this country.

Michael Dugher: In a recent speech at an event called “Transforming Technology Procurement through SMEs”, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said with typical understatement that the Government were
	“entering a new world for government technology procurement”
	and launching
	“radical reforms to increase opportunities for SME suppliers”.
	Why, then, according to freedom of information requests submitted by ComputerWeekly, has only 0.52% of all the IT procurement spend for the Government’s beleaguered universal credit programme gone to SMEs?

Chloe Smith: It continues to be pretty rich for the hon. Gentleman to come to this Dispatch Box when he and his Government did absolutely nothing to count the spend with SMEs when they were in government.

National Citizen Service

Caroline Nokes: What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

Gavin Barwell: What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

Glyn Davies: What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

Rehman Chishti: What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

Nick Hurd: We published an independent evaluation of the National Citizen Service in July and I am delighted to say that the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. It proved that NCS is boosting young people’s confidence, helping them to develop valuable skills, as well as inspiring them to make a difference in their communities. Return on investment is estimated at almost three times the cost of delivery.

Caroline Nokes: Mountbatten school in my constituency runs the NCS for the whole of Hampshire. This summer, more than 160 young people benefitted from the experience. The feedback from them has been overwhelmingly positive, but what reassurance can the Minister give that the scheme will continue into the future so that many more young people can benefit?

Nick Hurd: I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s young constituents got so much out of the experience. She will be delighted to know that 26,000 young people took part in NCS last year and our public intention is to make 150,000 places available in 2016. I hope that reassures her of our intention to make this fantastic experience available to many more 16 and 17-year-olds.

Gavin Barwell: Over the summer I had the opportunity to meet three groups of young people from my constituency who took part in the programme, which is run so well by The Challenge Network in my part of the country. What more can the Government do to encourage even more schools to get their pupils to take part in this excellent scheme?

Nick Hurd: I am delighted that my hon. Friend also had such a good experience with his local NCS. I am delighted to have it confirmed regularly that young people are now recommending it to each other, which, as he knows, is the way that it will grow. We continue to evangelise in schools, but it is fantastic that young people are now talking to each other on Facebook and Twitter and saying, “You should do this.”

Glyn Davies: My hon. Friend has told us how successful and popular the scheme has been. What plans does he have to extend the scheme more widely so that it can have an impact in Wales?

Nick Hurd: I am delighted to say that we have managed to persuade the Administration in Northern Ireland to adopt a very successful pilot there, which we are delighted with. I am very happy to confirm that we are continuing to talk with the Scottish and Welsh Administrations to try to encourage them to work with us to structure some pilots to make the scheme available to young people across the United Kingdom.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the young people who took part in the scheme in my constituency, which was delivered by the Medway Youth Trust? The scheme was completely filled this year and the trust wants to see it continue to grow next year.

Nick Hurd: I continue to be enormously impressed and proud of all NCS participants and how the experience raises their confidence and sense of what they can
	achieve. I would like to place on the record my thanks to all providers for the way in which they are delivering a very challenging programme so well and so consistently across the country.

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister accept that cuts to year-round services for young people have directly contributed to 6,000 NCS places not being filled this summer? What is he going to do to save the Youth Service, the year-round service that is now his responsibility?

Nick Hurd: The Cabinet Office is not devoting any money from local authorities. Every week the hon. Lady pops up to talk about cuts in her constituency, but she never asks any tough questions of her local authority about the priorities it sets. The Cabinet Office has taken over responsibility for youth policy, and part of what we will be doing is working with local authorities across the country that want to think creatively about how they continue to deliver really value-added youth services.

Duncan Hames: It was a privilege to meet participants in the National Citizen Service in Wiltshire last month. They told me that they got the opportunity to work with people on social action projects whom they would not otherwise have met. Does the Minister agree that the value of the initiative depends on its ability to continue to draw participants from all backgrounds?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. The social mix is fundamental to the value of NCS, because it is about giving young people opportunities to meet and spend time together that they would not otherwise have, and they value that enormously. We pay by results when it comes to providers delivering that, and we monitor it obsessively.

Procurement

Nicholas Dakin: What recent assessment he has made of implementation of the Government’s procurement reforms.

Chloe Smith: As a result of the Government’s procurement reforms, we have made the way we do business more competitive, more transparent, better value and far simpler than ever before.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for that answer. Are the Government still allowing large corporations that are being investigated for fraud to bid to run our probation services while excluding small businesses and organisations from doing the same?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman will find that the contracts he might be alluding to were all let by the previous Government, and I have already informed the House of the progress we are making in shifting Government business to SMEs.

Greg Mulholland: The Public Administration Committee’s report on procurement stated that the Cabinet Office should work with all Departments, and especially the Department for Business, Innovation
	and Skills, to ensure that UK business is prepared to deliver UK contracts. What progress is being made on that?

Chloe Smith: The most important thing to remind the House about in that regard is how the pipelines we have published show British firms, and indeed firms around the world that have a good piece of value to offer the British taxpayer, where they can find contracts.

Kelvin Hopkins: Britain has a massive trade deficit with the European Union, and it could be reduced if British companies were employed to provide for the Government. How much are the Government doing to ensure that public organisations purchase from British companies, rather than those from the continent of Europe?

Chloe Smith: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. What we seek is best value for the British taxpayer and to use the British Government’s procurement spend to allow for growth as far as possible in this country. We are of course bound by certain EU procurement rules, with which I am sure he is very familiar. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are a lot of very noisy conversations taking place, including on the Opposition Benches, but I am sure that Members will wish to be quiet to hear Stella Creasy.

Cyber-attacks

Stella Creasy: What steps he is taking to increase information-sharing between Government and businesses on cyber-attacks.

Francis Maude: As part of our £860 million investment in the national cyber-security programme, earlier this year I launched the cyber information-sharing partnership. It provides a secure online and face-to-face environment for Government, law-enforcement agencies and business to share information on cyber-threats and how best to combat them. Already over 150 firms and other organisations have joined, and it is our intention to expand the membership to include SMEs.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for that response. Given the important role that the police will play in helping small businesses tackle cybercrime, can the Minister tell us precisely how much of the £650 million cybercrime budget has been allocated to the police, and how much of it has been spent and on what?

Francis Maude: I cannot give the hon. Lady the exact figures off the top of my head. Obviously a considerable amount is being spent with the law enforcement agencies to combat cybercrime, about which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was complaining earlier. This is a very wide-ranging problem. There is a huge issue about awareness in the business community and we are working hard to promote it.

Topical Questions

Glyn Davies: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are for the Efficiency and Reform Group on the public sector, civil service issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

Glyn Davies: Will my right hon. Gentleman give us an update on how he plans to take his very valuable reform forward?

Francis Maude: We are making some progress on civil service reform. It was absolutely essential that we published in July our one-year-on report on progress. The head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, and I were very forthright in saying that progress had not been as fast as we would have hoped, but we are stepping up the pressure and the pace.

Gareth Thomas: While there are now rumours of significant concessions, Ministers still need to explain why charities were not consulted before the lobbying Bill was published. Why could not even the junior Minister be bothered to pick up the phone to the Royal British Legion, cancer charities or the National Council for Voluntary Organisations before producing a Bill that will have such a chilling impact on the work of charities?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we spent a significant amount of time on this in the House yesterday and that there is more opportunity to discuss it next week. He will also know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I met charity leaders on Monday and will continue to do so. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber. I understand the general excitement, which I am sure is in anticipation of the question from Mr Henry Smith.

Henry Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the £10 billion- worth of efficiency savings that his Department has made on behalf of the taxpayer in the past year. What ambition does he have for the coming year?

Francis Maude: We hope that those savings will rise to £15 billion in the current year, and potentially to £20 billion the following year, with a further £5 billion, at least, after that. If only the Leader of the Opposition had started to do this when he held my job, perhaps we would not have inherited quite the size of public sector deficit that we did, but I am afraid that he was showing weak leadership even then.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West
	(Mr Thomas) was to say that she had met charities on Monday. What was she doing all summer while the ramifications of this dog’s breakfast of a lobbying Bill became clear?

Chloe Smith: We were doing more over the summer to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists than Labour ever did.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister share my concern that too many charities spend too much money on lobbying and on inflation-busting pay rises and bonuses for the boardroom, and that they ought to be concentrating more on the front line of helping people in need?

Nick Hurd: I hear my hon. Friend. I happen to think that campaigning continues to be an entirely legitimate activity for charities as long as it fits with their charitable objectives. That has always been the Government’s position and I do not see this legislation affecting that.

Robert Flello: Leading human rights lawyer Helen Mountfield QC said this week that the transparency of lobbying Bill will put
	“small organisations and their trustees/directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern.”
	Will the Minister finally wake up and do something about this appalling Bill?

Chloe Smith: That leading QC’s advice in fact bears out that those concerns exist under the current legislation. Furthermore, we see a great show of displacement activity among Labour Members because they are afraid of some of their friends coming under scrutiny.

Anas Sarwar: Is it not the case that the transparency of lobbying Bill would not stop lobbyist Lynton Crosby advising the Prime Minister on tobacco policy, but could stop an organisation such as Cancer Research UK campaigning about it? Is that acceptable?

Chloe Smith: We explained at length yesterday that the Bill would not affect or change the law concerning the political activity of charitable organisations in the sense of when they support, promote or procure electoral outcomes. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question too many times to count.

Graeme Morrice: But the Government’s lobbying proposals would apply only to third-party consultant lobbyists who make up a small minority of the industry. The Association of Professional Political Consultants estimates that this means that only 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists will be captured by the legislation. Does the Minister agree with Iain Anderson of the APPC that this Bill is so bad that it
	“would be difficult to produce a worse Bill”?

Chloe Smith: If that was an attempt at lobbying it was rather too long-winded. The point is that we are doing more to introduce a statutory register than Labour ever did, and we are clearing up a specific transparency gap that arises, because we are the most transparent Government ever and I think the hon. Gentleman knows it.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Christopher Pincher: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 September.

David Cameron: Before listing my engagements, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their son, His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge. I am sure I speak for the whole nation in sending our congratulations and wishing them and Prince George a very happy and healthy life. I assure hon. Members that they will be able to offer their own congratulations next Monday when the formal motion is moved in the proper way.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Christopher Pincher: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s congratulation to their Royal Highnesses?
	Since we last met there has been a spate of good economic news, both in Tamworth and around the country. Unemployment is down and the economy is growing. Manufacturing is up, exports are up and construction is up. Is it not time for those who still propose it to stop messing around, give it up and abandon plan B?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have had welcome news over the summer: exports are up 5.8% on a year ago, business confidence is at its highest level since January 2008, consumer confidence is up and all the figures on construction, manufacturing and services are going in the right direction. We must not be complacent—these are early days—but it is because of the tough decisions that this Government took that we can now see progress.
	We ought to remember that Labour Members told us that unemployment would go up, but it has come down, and that the economy would go backwards, but it has gone forwards. It is time for them to explain that they were wrong and we were right.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George. I wish all of them all the happiness in the world.
	At the G20 summit in St Petersburg tomorrow, will the Prime Minister do everything he can to get other countries to match the UK’s important aid commitment to alleviate the humanitarian emergency in Syria, given
	that almost one third of Syrian families have been forced to flee their homes and yet the United Nations has less than half the resources it needs?

David Cameron: Of course I will be taking that action. Britain has a very proud record on humanitarian aid, not just in this conflict, but in many previous conflicts. In this one we are the second largest aid donor. We have spent more than £400 million. At the G20 it will be very important to make a number of points clear: our absolute revulsion at the use of chemical weapons, our desire for a peace process and, above all, the need to get donor countries together and make sure that they live up to their responsibilities and that we do everything we can to help the Syrian people in their hour of need.

Edward Miliband: The civil war in Syria and the refugee crisis are having profound consequences not just in that country, but across the middle east, specifically in Jordan, Turkey and Iraq and especially in Lebanon, where the population is up by 25% since the civil war began. What specific support, beyond the welcome humanitarian assistance that the Government are providing, can Britain give to those countries to help them deal with the burden on their infrastructure, economies and wider societies?

David Cameron: I have seen for myself, having been to a refugee camp in Jordan, how great the pressures are. That refugee camp is now one of the biggest cities in that country. We have well-funded embassies and diplomatic networks, and very close relations with Lebanon and Jordan, as well as with the Turks. We are doing everything we can to help and advise them. We are well placed to do so, because we are spending serious money on the humanitarian aid programmes.
	However, at the end of the day, what we need is a solution to the Syrian crisis. We need a peace process to be put in place. We also need to be absolutely clear about our revulsion to chemical weapons and should ensure that our aid programme is giving the Syrian people protection from the appalling chemical weapons attacks that they have suffered.

Edward Miliband: The revulsion at the chemical weapons attacks is shared in all parts of this House, as the debate last Thursday made clear.
	I want to come on to an issue that the Prime Minister raised, which is getting the talks going between the warring parties. The opposition Syrian National Council is meeting the Foreign Secretary in the next couple of days. Will the Prime Minister tell us what work he is doing with the Syrian National Council to make the talks in Geneva happen?

David Cameron: What we are doing with the Syrian National Council is twofold. First, we want to support those elements of the Syrian opposition that support a pluralistic, democratic and free Syria. That is what our engagement with them has been all about. We go further than that, however, because we recognise that the so-called rebels who back those views also deserve our support through training, assistance and advice. The truth is this: we will not get a peace process in Syria unless President Assad realises that his regime is under
	some sort of pressure and threat not just from the rebels, but from the millions of Syrians, whom we must stand up for, who want democracy, freedom and a better future for themselves and their children. It is those people whose side we should truly be on.

Edward Miliband: There is no difference across this House on the need to stand up for the innocent people of Syria. The question at issue—[Interruption.] The House has approached this issue, so far, in a calm and measured way, and we should carry on doing that. The point at issue is how to stand up for those people. There are big barriers, as we have found out over the past year or more, to the Geneva II peace talks happening. Is there not a case for immediate talks between those countries that are backing the rebels and those countries that are backing the regime? That happened during the civil war in Lebanon and it would at least provide a basis for discussions.

David Cameron: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Britain should use all its diplomatic muscle in discussions with those countries that have backed the regime and by joining with countries that back the rebels and the opposition to try to bring those talks about. That is why I have had repeated discussions with President Putin, for instance, most recently last Monday, and why I travelled to Sochi to see him specifically to discuss this issue.
	However, I come back to this point: it is all very well the countries that support either side wanting peace talks to take place, but we also need those involved in the conflict in Syria to recognise that it is in their interests for a peace process to begin. I think that we can convince the Syrian National Council that it is in its interests, because a transition could lead to genuinely free elections and change for Syria. However, we need Assad himself to realise that it is in his interests, because there is no victory that he can win against his own people. For that to happen, we need to take, and the world needs to take, a very tough response to things such as chemical weapons attacks. I accept that Britain cannot be and will not be part of any military action on that front, but we must not in any degree give up our utter revulsion at the chemical weapons attacks that we have seen and we must press that point in every forum of which we are a member.

Edward Miliband: Nobody disagrees about our revulsion at the use of chemical weapons. As I say, the question is how to deal with it. What I said to the Prime Minister was, given the difficulty of getting direct talks moving between the Syrian Government and opposition, is there not a case for getting the regional partners involved? We all know the role that Iran has played in fuelling this conflict. However, given that successful diplomacy involves talking to those with whom we profoundly disagree, what is the Government’s position on Iran participating either in a contact group or as part of the Geneva process?

David Cameron: As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, he will be meeting the Iranian Foreign Minister when he is in New York for the UN General Assembly. However, let us not forget what Iran has done to our embassy and to our country. We should not put that on one side.
	The point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that of course we all want these peace talks to take place and we all want Geneva II to happen, but we cannot want it more than the participants in Syria’s bloody conflict. We have to make sure it is in their interests that the talks go ahead. That is why, although diplomacy is important, the work we do with the Syrian opposition who support democracy and a pluralistic, fair and free future for Syria is also important. They are standing up for millions of Syrians who have been bombed and blasted out of their houses. Those are the people we need to talk to, in the refugee camps in Jordan and elsewhere, to see how they feel and how badly the rest of the world is currently letting them down.

Edward Miliband: Nobody disagrees with that, or indeed about the view we take of Iran’s behaviour. The question is, how are we going to bring the parties together, including the regional parties?
	Finally, does the Prime Minister accept that there remains support across the country for Britain taking every diplomatic, political and humanitarian effort to help the Syrian people? Last week’s vote was not about Britain shirking its global responsibilities, it was about preventing a rush to war.

David Cameron: Last week the House of Commons voted clearly, and I have said that I respect the outcome of that vote and will not be bringing back plans for British participation in military action. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must bring to bear everything we have in our power—our diplomatic networks, our influence with other countries and our membership of all the key bodies such as the G8, the G20, the UN, the EU and NATO. My only regret from last week is that I do not think it was necessary to divide the House on a vote that could have led to a vote, but he took the decision that it was.

Daniel Kawczynski: We hear today that the UK services business activity index is at its highest level for six and a half years. Does that not show that the Government’s economic policies are working, and will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that our increased prosperity helps to pay for Shrewsbury’s north-west relief road?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at the proposal my hon. Friend makes. I know that he wants Shrewsbury to be a connected hub in our country, and he puts that case regularly. The good news about this economic recovery, early days though it is, is that we are seeing it through more people in work. There are 935,000 more people employed than there were when this Government came to office and 1.3 million more private sector jobs, and we need to see further progress on that, because the best route out of poverty and the best way to improve living standards in our country is to see an increasing number of our men and women in gainful work.

Jack Straw: May I press the Prime Minister on the issue of relations with Iran? With respect to him, his previous answer sounded as if he had taken no account of the fact that since our embassy was outrageously sacked by Ahmadinejad and his thugs,
	there has been an election in Iran, however imperfect, that has led to a different individual becoming President, Hassan Rouhani, who to my certain knowledge is someone the west and the British Prime Minister can deal with. May I ask him to look very carefully, with the Foreign Secretary, at how we can take steps now to improve relations with Iran, identify matters of common interest and try to get it involved in solving Syria?

David Cameron: I agree that the election of a President who has a greater commitment to reform is a positive step, and I have written to President Rouhani to raise a series of issues that need to be settled between Britain and Iran. Above all, we need to see progress on what President Rouhani himself has said is important, which is trying to come to an agreement whereby Iran gives up the idea of nuclear weapons and in return we see some relief on sanctions. That would be major progress, but we should not just do that from a position of hoping for the best. We have seen what Iran has been capable of in the recent past, so we should go into such discussions very cautiously.

Alun Cairns: Does the Prime Minister agree that accuracy of statistics is vital to inform public debate? Is he aware that 4% of people believe that Elvis is still alive? That is double the number we hear today who think that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is a natural leader.

David Cameron: I can see that my hon. Friend has certainly put his summer to very good use, and I am grateful for his question. Obviously, we need to see a run of opinion polls before we can see a true trend.

Margaret Beckett: Why does the Prime Minister believe that his plans to restrict lobbying are opposed by organisations from the Salvation Army, the Countryside Alliance, Oxfam, the British Legion, and so on, right through to Conservative Home?

David Cameron: I was listening to the exchanges before I came in for Prime Minister’s questions, and it seems to me that a concerted lobbying campaign is being run by the trade unions, who have mysteriously managed to convince Member of Parliament after Member of Parliament on the Opposition Benches to raise this problem. We all know what is going on—they do not want the trade unions brought within the law; they want the trade unions to go on spending millions after millions trying to alter an election campaign, rather than having them properly controlled by the law. That is what the lobbying Bill is about.

Caroline Dinenage: The UK economy is set to benefit from around £50 million by hosting the epic Clipper round the world yacht race, which kicked off this week. Will the Prime Minister come to Gosport to see for himself one of the UK’s top marine and sailing hubs, and personally congratulate Clipper Ventures, which is literally flying the flag for Britain’s tourism, trade and watersports?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have seen a model of this incredible vessel and I join her in welcoming the fantastic contribution that
	Clipper Ventures makes to the British economy. It was great to see the race leave London for the first time, and even better to see that the flotilla was led by a British boat and superbly supported by the great campaign. I will certainly take into account my hon. Friend’s kind invitation to come to Gosport, and I wish Sir Robin Knox-Johnston well, and all those taking part.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Prime Minister back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) a few minutes ago? Can he be more positive about building better relations urgently with Iran, as one of the keys—one, not all—to bring about a peace process in Syria and across the whole region? Simply attacking Iran all the time will not bring it to the negotiating table, and it is better if the Prime Minister is more positive about it.

David Cameron: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but if we are trying to build a relationship with someone, it depends on the actions that they take. Given that the Iranian Government were complicit in the complete smashing of our embassy and residence in Tehran, we will want to see some action so that we can build that sort of relationship. I have reached out by writing to President Rouhani, congratulating him on his accession to power and wanting to discuss those issues. As I have said, however, if we believe there is just some magical key to the Syrian conflict by suddenly adopting a totally different posture towards Iran, I do not think we will be making a very good decision.

David Rutley: Last week we saw the proportion of households with no one in work fall to the lowest level since records began. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is further evidence that the Government’s welfare reforms are working, all of which have been opposed by the Labour party?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the second quarter of 2013 there were 3.5 million workless households in the UK, which is down 182,000 on the year and down 425,000 since the election. Each one of those statistics tells a story about people who will be able to get into work, provide for their family and make something of their lives. We should be proud of our welfare reforms, every single one of which was opposed by the Labour party. We have not just saved £83 billion in welfare measures that Labour Members opposed; we have given hope to millions of families in our country.

Joan Ruddock: Like the Prime Minister, I condemn the chemical attacks in Syria, but is it not time for some joined-up thinking? Surely an American strike now would squander the opportunities offered by the new Iranian leadership and by the new US initiative in Palestine. Will the Prime Minister do what the British people want and insist that the G20 searches for a way to bring about a ceasefire, rather than a new bombing raid?

David Cameron: As I have said, I respect fully the decision the House came to after the debate last week and Britain will not play any part in military action, but
	I ask the right hon. Lady to put herself, for a moment, in the shoes of the President of the United States and others. He set a very clear red line that, if there was large-scale chemical weapons use, something had to happen. We know that the regime used chemical weapons on at least 14 previous occasions. To ask the President, having set that line and made that warning, to step away from it, would be a perilous suggestion to make. In response, I believe we would see more chemical weapons attacks from the regime.
	The right hon. Lady has a long track record of supporting peace and peace talks, which I respect. I will do everything I can to try to bring the Geneva II peace talks together, but I do not believe there is a contradiction in taking a tough line on the use of chemical weapons, which are revolting in our modern world, and wanting the peace talks that could bring the crisis to an end.

Jesse Norman: Cancer funding per head in Herefordshire is half that in Birmingham. Academic research suggests that the current NHS funding formula discriminates against rural areas and older people. Does the Prime Minister share my view that the NHS should move as quickly as possible towards fairer funding for rural areas?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but he will know that we have taken a lot of those decisions away from Ministers and given them to NHS England, which has said that it is looking at a fairer funding formula. I am sure it will look at the arguments he has made. In addition, I ask him to look at the Cancer Drugs Fund, which has been a phenomenal success in England. Sadly, it has not been copied by Labour in Wales, but I am full of hope. The fund has helped many of our constituents to get the treatments they badly need.

Gordon Banks: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what he is doing to support food banks in the UK?

David Cameron: We have done something that the food bank movement had been asking for for years, but that the Labour Government did not grant because they were worried about the public relations—namely, the ability to say to people in Jobcentre Plus who needed help that they could go to a food bank. The Labour Government might not have wanted to do that because it was bad publicity; we did it because it was the right thing.

Neil Parish: Does the Prime Minister agree that the combination of the good weather, our deficit reduction and our control of public spending has given confidence to business and individuals to create 1.3 million jobs? However, given those encouraging figures, is he somewhat surprised that the Leader of the Opposition still believes that the Government’s policy will cost 1 million jobs?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend could add to the good weather the fact that Andy Murray won Wimbledon and England retained the Ashes—much good news was to be had over the summer. It is important that we recognise what brought about the good news to which
	he refers. Parties had to make a key judgment on whether, in this Parliament, to get to grips with the deficit and take the tough decisions we needed to turn our country around. The Government parties made those tough decisions; the Labour party ducked every single one of them.

Bridget Phillipson: The Government are right to extend free nursery provision to disadvantaged two-year-olds, but figures show that four in 10 councils will not have sufficient places. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that all those children promised a place will have one?

David Cameron: We have put in place the funding to provide that for the disadvantaged two-year-olds and I am confident that they will receive the services they deserve.

Graham Evans: Unemployment in my constituency is lower than at any time since the 2010 general election. Locally, I have organised two successful jobs fairs and we are organising a third. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that goes to show that the Government are right to stick to the economic plan, despite calls to abandon it by Opposition Members?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures on employment are encouraging. There are more people in work in our country than ever before and more people in private sector employment than ever before; there is a record number of women in work in our country; and there are almost 1 million more people in work compared with the situation we inherited. At some stage, Labour Members will have to get off the fence and admit they got it wrong. They were wrong, but even today, the shadow Chancellor is saying he will borrow even more, even when we have started turning round the economy. He has learnt absolutely nothing.

Lilian Greenwood: Energy companies have enjoyed a £3.3 billion profit windfall while ordinary families face energy bills going up by £300 a year. Why has the Prime Minister failed to stand up to energy companies and get a better deal from the energy market for ordinary families?

David Cameron: I do not know where the hon. Lady was during the debate on the Energy Bill, but this Government have legislated to make sure that people are put on the lowest tariffs. This Government have done that, but when the leader of the Labour party was Energy Secretary—when, incidentally, bills went through the roof—there was no such action.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Office for National Statistics has revised its figures for growth upwards by 0.7%, there is a record number of apprenticeships and very low unemployment in the Cotswolds, and there are very good conditions for young people to get into work. Does my right hon. Friend think that all that would have been achieved if he had taken the advice of the shadow Chancellor?

David Cameron: What my hon. Friend says is very interesting. Every time there is a question about the economy—that more people are in work, more businesses are being established and the economy is growing—the Opposition do not want to hear a word of it. They know what the whole country can see—Britain is succeeding and Labour is failing.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for the fact that it is now forecast that by the time of the election working people will have lost, on average, £6,660 of wages in real terms while he has been in No. 10?

David Cameron: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is only one sustainable way to get living standards up, and that is to get the economy growing, which we are doing; to cut taxes, which we are delivering; and to keep mortgage rates low, which we are doing. The fact is that if we listened to the Opposition—who only have one plan, to spend more, borrow more and build up more debt—we would be back to where we started.

Peter Tapsell: As the Syrian tragedy has unfolded, I have always had the armageddon question in the back of my mind, which I shall now, in an understated form, put to the Prime Minister, if I may. If the Americans illegally bombard the Assad forces and Assad legally invites the Russians in to degrade the rebels, what will NATO do?

David Cameron: The first point that I would make to my right hon. Friend is that we would never support illegal action. We debated this at some length last week, and it is not the case that the only way action can be legal is a UN resolution. We would only support action that was legal and proportionate. As I have said, Britain would not be taking part in any of this action. In a way, we have to put the armageddon question round the other way, which is that if no action were taken following President Obama’s red line and this appalling use of chemical weapons, what sort of armageddon would the Syrian people face?

Jimmy Hood: The Prime Minister says that he does not support a mansion tax for people living in mansions worth more than £2 million because, he claims, some people living in them are capital rich and cash poor. How does the Prime Minister square that with his support for the bedroom tax, which punishes people who are capital poor and have no cash?

David Cameron: First, the hon. Gentleman has to be clear about what is and what is not a tax. Before our changes, there was a subsidy for people who had additional rooms they were not using, and we believe that it is fair to have the same rules in private sector rented accommodation and in council accommodation. The question is now for Labour. You have ranted and raved about the spare room subsidy. Are you going to reverse it? Just nod. Are you going to reverse it? Yes or no? Absolutely nothing to say, and weak with it.

Duncan Hames: It is no trivial decision for people to up sticks and leave their home and country, fleeing for their own safety. How many
	people must have left Syria before it is impossible for its regime to declare any kind of moral entitlement to govern that country?

David Cameron: I do not believe that the regime has any legitimacy. The way it has treated its own people—bombing and maiming its own citizens, and now the use of chemical weapons—I see it as a completely illegitimate regime. What we now have to do is bring every pressure to bear for a transition so we can end up with Syria in totally different hands. That is what is required.

Barbara Keeley: The cost of secondary school uniforms has spiralled to £285 this year, as new free schools and academies insist on branded clothes. In fact, at one new academy 70% of parents had to take out loans to pay for uniforms. Why has the Prime Minister failed to act? His schools policy is now leading to loans that can only add to the profit of loan companies, such as Wonga.

David Cameron: First, like many people and many parents, I think it is absolutely right for schools, if they want, to choose to have a tough and robust uniform policy. I was at the opening of a new free school in Birmingham yesterday where all the parents in the room were grateful for the school’s policy. I have to say that what I see is the hon. Lady trying to find a way to oppose free schools. The fact is that we now have 194 free schools. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like it because parents think it is a good education. The Opposition are going to have to listen to the figures: two thirds of these schools are either “good” or “outstanding”. At some stage, just as it got it wrong on the economy, the Labour party will have to admit that it got it wrong about free schools, too.

Julian Lewis: It cost the Ministry of Defence £1.4 billion to extend the life of the four Trident submarines so that the Liberal Democrats could study alternatives. Now that that study has shown there is no alternative to Trident, will the Prime Minister consider signing the main-gate contract for the first two submarines, so that we can never again be blackmailed by the Liberal Democrats in a hung Parliament?

David Cameron: I have to credit my hon. Friend with remarkable consistency on this issue, on which, basically, I agree: we have Trident, it is the right approach and we need to renew Trident. Actually, the delay of the main-gate decision has saved us money, rather than cost us money. His point about the review is absolutely right. It shows that if we want a proper functioning deterrent, we need to have the best, and that means a permanently at-sea submarine-based alternative. That is what a Conservative-only Government, after the next election, will deliver.

John Mann: Is it not the case that—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is something of an exotic creature in the House and I think that that excites interest on Government Benches, but I do wish to hear what he has to say and he must be heard.

John Mann: Is it not the case that real wages have fallen by nearly £1,500 a year since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister?

David Cameron: Of course we live in tough times because of the incredible mess we have had to clear up from the Opposition. I have to say that the Opposition complaining about the economy and living standards is like the arsonist complaining to the fire brigade. It is this Government who are turning the economy around, and that is the way we will get living standards up.

Gordon Birtwistle: Burnley was recently awarded, by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the prestigious award for the most enterprising town in the UK. Does my right hon. Friend wish to
	congratulate the many businesses in Burnley who are members of the Burnley bondholders scheme on their achievement?

David Cameron: I certainly congratulate businesses, large and small, in Burnley for the enterprise they have shown. The fact about this recovery is that it is a private sector-led recovery. That is what we needed after massive and excessive Government spending, and it has been very good that businesses up and down the country, including in Burnley, have done so much to take people on and to get our economy moving.

Mr Speaker: We will move in a moment to the urgent question from Yvette Cooper. Perhaps Members who are leaving the Chamber could do so quickly and quietly.

Border Force

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement in response to the National Audit Office’s borders report.

Hon. Members: Where is she?

Mark Harper: I hear Opposition Members shouting out about where the Home Secretary is. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has no confidence in the shadow Immigration Minister, after his extraordinarily successful summer, but I am responsible for these matters in the Home Office and I am dealing with the urgent question.
	Early in 2011, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration—

David Winnick: Where’s the Home Secretary?

Mark Harper: It is no good Members complaining. They ought to remember that this Government inherited from Labour a border system that, like many other parts of government, was not functioning very well at all. This is another area where we have had to put things right.
	In 2011, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration reported that border security checks were often suspended without ministerial approval, and found poor communication, poor managerial oversight and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities in Border Force. In response, the Home Secretary removed Border Force from the old UK Border Agency and brought it back within the direct command of the Home Office. Since then we have seen a considerable improvement in performance. As the NAO recognises, all passengers are now checked and queue times are reduced. Indeed, as set out in its last report, targets for detection and seizure of harmful goods and substances are being met and exceeded.
	The UK operates one of the most secure borders in the world, with more than 200 million people crossing the border and hundreds of billions of pounds of goods imported and exported. The capability delivered by our border systems is one of the most advanced in Europe and among the best in the world. We are one of only a handful of countries that operate a pre-departure checking system, preventing those who would do us most harm from even boarding aircraft, but of course there is some way to go. Border Force has carried out extensive works on its systems, including the warnings index, which ensures that dangerous persons are identified at the border, to ensure that it continues to operate effectively. We will continue to drive up the performance and resilience of the warnings index and other key systems to ensure that they fully support our officers’ efforts to protect the border.
	The culture and morale in Border Force are very important. We are dedicated to ensuring that every member of staff is motivated, trained and developed. Challenges remain, but I and Sir Charles Montgomery, the new permanent director-general, a former Second
	Sea Lord, have visited many staff at the border to speak to them. I have found a work force proud of the work they do, committed to the task in hand and always keen to tell me about their successes and the challenges that exist.
	People have said that we are not checking everyone who comes into the country, but the report is clear that that is not the case. Since we introduced the ministerially endorsed operating mandate last year, full checks are being delivered at our ports. Last year, more than 135 million passengers and crew were screened even before they reached the border, resulting in more than 2,880 arrests, including for murder, rape and kidnap.
	As well as checking all passengers arriving, we continue to perform intelligence-led checks on goods and freight coming into the country. The National Audit Office confirms that Border Force is meeting and exceeding targets for seizures of some of the most dangerous and harmful materials that criminals attempt to bring into the country. Our class A drugs and firearms targets are being met and exceeded, as are our targets for illegal entrants at our juxtaposed border controls in France and Belgium. Last year we detected 6,000 clandestine attempts at Calais alone and this year we are running ahead of that rate.
	Since its establishment last year, Border Force has been working to ensure that the chief inspector’s recommendations have been addressed. During last year’s Olympics, Border Force received significant recognition for its work ensuring that athletes, VIPs and visitors from across the world entered the country without delay, in order that the UK could deliver a world-class games. I am delighted to say that the NAO’s report confirms that we have improved against every one of the recommendations in the chief inspector’s report. I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: That was a very complacent response from the Minister, with no explanation of where the Home Secretary is. Today’s National Audit Office report reveals that customs examinations, including for drugs and firearms, are being suspended to cope with passport controls, that checks for illegal migrants hiding in lorries are frequently being stopped, and that staff are reducing the questioning of those with suspect visas in order to meet other pressures. The report also reveals a culture of fear and low morale, as well as leadership problems, with five different directors-general in the past 18 months, staff shortages, understaffing at countless ports even after the latest recruitment, and a funding gap. It states that the Department’s internal auditors have confirmed that the Olympics and wider resourcing issues have had an impact on the security of the border. Will the Home Secretary now publish that internal audit report, so that we can find out how many times checks were stopped?
	The NAO report also states:
	“In Calais, we observed officers being taken off controls to detect clandestine illegal entrants to the UK concealed in lorries in order to deal with passenger queues”.
	That was seen to happen three times in three days, and freight searching was suspended on a further 19 occasions due to understaffing. So, if checks were stopped 21 times in three days, how many times have they been stopped in the past year? At that rate, it would have been
	2,500 times at Calais alone. It is no wonder that they stopped trying to fingerprint stowaways; it seems as though they stopped trying to catch them at all.
	It also seems as though the Home Secretary’s only answer to illegal immigration is to get a man in a van to drive round in circles with a poster asking people if they would mind going home. People do not want gimmicks; they want the Government to get the basics of border security right. The Home Secretary cannot duck her responsibility for that. She ignored the warnings and cut 500 staff from the Border Force before the Olympics. She is just shunting the problem round in circles. First the passport checks, then hours of queues, and now drops in checks on stowaways, guns and drugs and, still, a big drop in the number of illegal migrants being stopped at our border.
	The Government are not sorting out the fundamental problems. Each time, the Home Secretary blames someone else, reshuffles the deckchairs and sends someone else to answer the questions. So, will this Minister answer the questions? How many times have the checks been stopped? Will he publish the internal report? And will the Government stop ducking their responsibility and sort the fundamental problems out?

Mark Harper: First, the right hon. Lady is not right to say that checks were suspended. That is not what the report says. As she will know, there is a layered approach at Calais. Checks are done by Border Force officers, and searching by the port authorities also takes place, using equipment supplied by us. We also have contractors, who were absolutely excellent and very successful when I visited in the summer. The day I was there, one of our contractors with detector dogs had that morning found 24 people attempting to enter—[Interruption.] Well, with the greatest respect, I know that labradors are intelligent, but I do not think that that labrador was aware that a Minister was arriving to observe the search for clandestine immigrants. I believe that that level of performance is sustained every day. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has not had a great summer for well-researched thought-through speeches, as everyone in the House is well aware. Perhaps it would be welcome if we heard a little less from him. It is not the case that checks were suspended, even if Border Force officers were dealing with queues. Freight searching was still being carried out, both by our contractors and by the port authorities.
	The shadow Home Secretary also referred to the decision not to fingerprint clandestines. I remind her that that decision was actually taken by the former Government of whom she was a member. It was taken early in 2010, which, if I remember rightly, was before the last general election. As I said in response to the chief inspector’s report, that is something that we are reviewing to see whether the decision remains sensible.
	On the issue of a culture of fear, all I can say is that I have visited a number of our ports—both airports and seaports—and our juxtaposed controls and, in my experience, the officers I met were, as I said in my statement, dedicated staff. I did not find any reticence on the part of officers in either saying what they were good at or stating where they thought there were issues. They raised their concerns directly with Ministers, and my experience was also the experience of the director-general. I say simply, then, that what the right hon. Lady mentioned was not my experience.
	I think I have dealt with the shadow Home Secretary’s point about leadership, as we have now appointed a permanent director-general who, in his capacity as Second Sea Lord, has a record of achievement from outside the Department. I believe that he has already started to lead the organisation in a very powerful way.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady made a last throwaway remark about our pilot of publicity on vans. I would point out here that most of the public support the tough stance we have taken on illegal immigration and that the majority of voters of all parties—72% of the public—support the vans. They want to see our tough approach continue and they do not want the weak approach of the Labour party.

John Redwood: I would like to thank the Minister for a very visible improvement in the performance of the Border Agency over the last year or so, and urge him to work with his staff to ensure that ever-higher standards are achieved by promptly and courteously allowing the legal people in and by ensuring that we find all the illegals at the first point of entry.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know from a conversation we had that he has seen the work that our border officers do in our juxtaposed controls, where attempted illegal entries are prevented from even getting to the United Kingdom. He makes a good point, too, about the rest of the UK Border Agency after the agency’s split into the two component parts of UK visas and immigration and immigration enforcement. It is doing exactly what my right hon. Friend said, which is to welcome those who come to Britain to contribute—skilled workers and students, for example—while deterring those who do not and ensuring that those who overstay their welcome are removed from the country.

Keith Vaz: Ministers were right to respond to public concern and the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee by putting in additional staff to check passports, but it appears from this report that that came at the expense of those who should have been checking vehicles and people before they entered the country. Will he confirm whether that was, in fact, the case; and will he further confirm that the legal loophole, mentioned in the report by John Vine, has now been closed? Does he agree that co-operation with our EU partners is essential, given that the UK border is actually the border between Turkey and Greece—that is where illegal migration enters the EU—and that unless the French are prepared to work with us in furthering that co-operation, we will not be able to stop people entering our country?

Mark Harper: I welcome the remarks of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. He raised three questions, which I shall endeavour to answer. The first was about resources, and given that the checks were not being conducted as they should have been in all cases, it would be fair to say that in responding to the chief inspector’s report and implementing the operating mandate, it was clearly necessary to increase the resources going into the Department. As to whether we have the balance right, it is obviously something that we keep under review, and it is a challenge for all operational managers.
	I refer back to the National Audit Office’s last report, not the one published today, that looked into our detection and seizure of serious goods—class A drugs, firearms and so forth—that people were attempting to get through the border. The report said that in all those cases we were meeting and exceeding our seizure and detection targets. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I think that we are succeeding.
	I do not have time to go in detail into the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the legal loophole, but I can say that we are making considerable progress and that his general point about the importance of partnership working is absolutely true. I recall a visit last autumn when I met the new French Interior Minister, and I visited Calais and Coquelles this summer in order to see for myself the co-operative work going on between the French port authorities and our Border Force officers. Such co-operation is excellent and we need to keep it in that good shape as we go forward.

Martin Horwood: Does not the report demonstrate that endless headline-grabbing reorganisations and legislation—with four Acts coming from the last Government alone—were always less important than ensuring that the system we have is effective, efficient and well managed? Is that not something on which we should all be able to agree, instead of turning this serious issue into a party political football?

Mark Harper: I agree with my hon. Friend and Gloucestershire near-neighbour. It was clear from the chief inspector’s report that we had inherited an organisation that was not doing the day job properly, and was not checking everyone who was coming into the country. The whole point of splitting Border Force from the UK Border Agency was to improve that situation. The NAO report has made it clear that we have made progress in regard to all the chief inspector’s recommendations, that we are dealing with the issues that have been raised, and that Border Force is in better shape. However, we are not complacent. There is always more to do, and we now have an excellent director-general who is leading that important job of work.

Paul Goggins: Will the Minister confirm that he and the Home Secretary have been receiving monthly reports about the length of queues? If that is the case, will he tell us whether those reports have included details of the number of checks carried out in relation to illegal entry and, indeed, items such as drugs and firearms?

Mark Harper: As the report says, there was a period when there was a real problem with queues and the Home Secretary and I were receiving frequent reports every day, but I am pleased to say that that is no longer necessary, because the organisation is now in much better shape. We focused very much on that problem, but it has largely been fixed, and I think more than 99% of passengers entering the country are now dealt with through our service level agreements.
	As I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), we are meeting and exceeding our targets in relation to the detection of firearms and substances such as class A drugs which people attempt to bring into the country. Border Force is delivering on that.

Yvette Cooper: That is not what it says.

Mark Harper: If the right hon. Lady looks at the NAO’s report, which it compiled specifically on this issue for the 2012-13 financial year, she will see that during that period we were meeting and exceeding our targets on class A drugs and firearms. [Interruption.] It is true. I will be frank and admit that we were doing less well on tobacco and counterfeit goods, but in relation to the really important things such as class A drugs and firearms we were meeting and exceeding our targets. I think that that should reassure Members.

Nicola Blackwood: The key question must be whether Border Force has the capacity to carry out both the customs checks and the passenger checks that are necessary to protect our national security. The NAO report expresses concern about that. Does the Minister think that Border Force’s current recruitment process will deal with any concerns that he may have?

Mark Harper: I thank my hon. Friend—who is also a member of the Home Affairs Committee—for her question. As I explained in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, there was a problem to start with when we introduced the operating mandate. Full checks of people coming into the country were not being carried out. We accordingly provided more resources, and, as my hon. Friend acknowledged in her question, we are now hiring new Border Force staff in a number of ports. Our best assessment is that both funding and manpower are sufficient to enable us to do the job, and, although of course we keep the position under review at all times, I think that the balance is right at the moment.

David Winnick: If everything is fine, why is the National Audit Office so critical of so many aspects, including what it describes as “a culture of fear” and “low morale” among Border Force officers? Incidentally, should not the Home Secretary, rather than the Minister, be here to respond to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary?

Mark Harper: I think I explained that in my response. I am the Immigration Minister, I am responsible for these parts of the Home Office, and the Home Secretary is content for me to deal with this. [Interruption.] The shadow Immigration Minister should stop chuntering from a sedentary position. He has had not had a great summer. I can understand why the shadow Home Secretary—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let the point be made from the Chair that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has exercised his vocal cords very fully, should now cease to do so. Let us hear from the Minister.

Mark Harper: I am very pleased, on this occasion, to agree 100% with that sentiment, Mr. Speaker. I think I speak for most Members when I say that.
	Let me respond to the serious point made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I do not think I said in my response that everything was rosy. I said that we had inherited an organisation with problems, that we were tackling the problems and that there was more to do. I also said that in response to the question
	from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and I pointed out that we had a new director-general.
	My experience in the Home Office is that there is always more to do. We have to keep on top of the task of dealing with people who try to come into the country and should not be doing so—while welcoming those who should—and we have to deal with the ever-changing security threats. That is a challenge that I think we are meeting, and meeting every day. I should add that our front-line officers do an excellent job in keeping the United Kingdom safe.

Mark Reckless: Should not the Border Force, like any organisation that has to deal with pronounced peaks in customer demand, be allowed the flexibility that would enable it to transfer staff from other activities to assist when there are such peaks in demand? Obviously, if we are given intelligence that drugs are coming through, we shall not want to transfer the staff who will deal with that, but is not transferring people who are carrying out fewer random checks than others an example of sensible management?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend has made a sensible point about intelligence. Obviously, as I said in my response, we use it to guide the efforts that we put into freight checking. My hon. Friend has also made the sensible point that there are peaks and troughs in the number of passengers crossing the border. As well as our permanent work force, we have staff on whom we can call at those peak times to ensure that we continue to deliver a secure border, but we are also mindful, of the need to deliver value for money, which the National Audit Office mentions in its report. Of course, all Departments have to deal with the appalling financial legacy that we were left by the Labour party.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister has laid much stress on the quality of border checks. As he will know, at the end of the last Session I was privileged to be elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, and in that role I have been meeting groups who work with trafficked people. Kalayaan tells me that it has yet to meet a holder of an overseas domestic worker visa who, under the new visa system, has actually carried his or her own passport through the passport check. The passport is always held by the visa holder’s employer. What will the Minister do about that?

Mark Harper: The operating mandate specifies that everyone who crosses the border must have his or her passport checked and must have the necessary documents. On the basis of what I know, I do not think that what the hon. Lady says is correct, but I will make inquiries and then write to her. I think that that is a reasonable way to approach the matter. In the meantime, given her position as chair of the all-party group, I shall be happy to maintain a sensible dialogue with her on human-trafficking issues.

Bob Blackman: UK Border Force did an excellent job during the Olympics, welcoming millions of new visitors. We hope that they will come back, in which case we will welcome them warmly again. However, is it not time that there were separate
	streams at our airports and ports—one for UK nationals with UK passports who are returning to the country, one for EU entrants and one for everyone else? Would that not enable us to streamline the whole process?

Mark Harper: First, as my hon. Friend knows, one of our obligations as members of the European Union is to deal with European passport holders together with those from the UK. Secondly—this is a practical point—adopting his suggestion would require us and the airports to spend an extraordinary amount of money on remodelling all our airports and ports, which I do not think would be very sensible at present.
	The basis of my hon. Friend’s point, however, is the need to ensure that British citizens returning home, EU nationals coming to Britain and people coming here from outside the EU all have a good experience at the border. The NAO report suggests that we are performing the necessary checks to make certain that the border is secure, while processing people within the provisions of our service level agreements and enabling them swiftly to enter the United Kingdom, where they will be able to work and spend some of their hard-earned money to benefit our economy.

Stephen McCabe: There may well be an argument for some staff flexibility, but can the Minister positively assure us that there is no danger that some officials are more worried about television pictures of queues than about the risks at our borders?

Mark Harper: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. I make it very clear on my visits, as does the director-general, that we must deal with both those challenges—people crossing the border and freight. As I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, there was no suspension of freight checks at Calais. We adopt a multi-layered approach. Even when Border Force officers are not searching vehicles, the staff at the port and our contractors are doing so. I am confident that there are proper checks on people coming into the United Kingdom, and proper intelligence-led checks on freight and goods as well.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Border Force team in Tilbury, in my constituency, have been reporting much higher morale since being spun out from the Border Agency? Does not the report also confirm that that was exactly the right decision?

Mark Harper: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comment. I had the great pleasure of visiting Tilbury with her early in my time as Immigration Minister, and was very impressed with the engagement of staff there. As she says, the report confirms making Border Force a stand-alone organisation in the Home Office was the right thing to do. It has enabled the organisation to focus on delivering on the operating mandate, and I think that under the new permanent leadership of Sir Charles Montgomery, that process will continue.

William McCrea: Is the substance of what is reported in the national newspapers accurate or inaccurate, and what challenges does the Minister think still remain?

Mark Harper: Having gone through the report very carefully, I think that it is probably fair to say that not all the national newspapers over-egged the pudding in how they reported the report. I thought that the report was very balanced. The interviews that the National Audit Office did this morning were very balanced. It made the point that Border Force is doing lots of things very well, but it recognises that there are still challenges. I think that I echoed that tone in my remarks. We have made significant improvements, but there is still more work to be done. That, in a nutshell, is what the NAO said in its report, and we are grateful for the work that it does.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend said that last year Border Force detained some 6,000 people at Calais trying to enter the UK. Presumably, all of them were already illegal immigrants in France. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), can my hon. Friend tell the House what the French are doing to remove from their jurisdiction illegal immigrants who are intent upon entering our jurisdiction?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend asks a two-part question. The first part was whether everyone trying to enter the UK illegally is necessarily in France illegally. That is not necessarily the case. France is in Schengen, of course, and there are people who are entitled to be in France but who do not have the right to enter Britain illegally in the back of a lorry, so we stop them entering. Some of them are, of course, in France illegally, however, and we work with our French colleagues by doing what we can to help them to make sure they are removed from France. Not all of them will be in France illegally, however, and I reiterate what I said in response to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee: partnership-working with our colleagues in France is very important and works very well, and we want to make sure that that strong relationship continues because it is how we keep our border secure.

Geoffrey Robinson: Did I hear the Minister right when he said we are doing less well on illegal cigarettes? That is very noticeable in Coventry, which has become a centre nationally for massive trafficking in cigarettes. Does he agree with the NAO director, Louise Bladen, that—despite all the reassurances he has given us, with great politeness and courtesy—it is just not the case that the resources are there to deal with cigarettes, for example, which are continuing to flood in?

Mark Harper: We do a very good in intercepting hundreds of millions of illegal cigarettes every year, bur I was making a point about the relative focus. The last NAO report found that we were meeting and exceeding our targets on class A drugs and firearms. On cigarettes, we were doing less well, but we are still intercepting hundreds of millions of cigarettes. We work with our colleagues overseas to intercept where they are being manufactured and brought into the country. I have seen lots of examples from visits of where our officers have intercepted considerable volumes of cigarettes. That work needs continuous attention. I was simply making the point that, clearly, if we are going to focus our resources, I would prioritise dealing with class A drugs, firearms,
	illegal immigration and people who put weapons together above cigarettes, but that was in no way to say that dealing with the illegal smuggling of tobacco was in any way unimportant.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the Minister because it is clear that the Department under his leadership has been doing much—

Chris Bryant: Under his leadership?

Michael Ellis: Under his leadership on the immigration issue, the Department has done extremely well to improve UKBA over the last year, because is it not true that we inherited a massive pig in a poke from the last Labour Government, including massive net immigration, uncontrolled transitional arrangements for eastern Europeans, the Human Rights Act 1998, a 450,000 asylum backlog and all the rest of it. The Minister inherited a complete mess from the Labour party, and does he agree that we are doing everything to improve that position?

Mark Harper: I agree with my hon. Friend, and let me say two things. On the cigarette point, despite the fact that the last report found that we were not hitting the target for cigarette seizures, cigarette seizures were still up by 7%, so Border Force was improving its performance; it just was not improving it fast enough to hit our very ambitious targets. In answer to my hon. Friend’s general point, what he said provides me with a good opportunity to say that I am glad to be able to report that that huge asylum backlog was largely sorted out before I became Immigration Minister by my excellent ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), so I had a much better inheritance than the one that he inherited from the Labour party.

Pamela Nash: The NAO report and the Minister’s answers today have made it clear that freight checks were adversely affected as a result of staff shortages and policy changes. Can he tell us how many illegal migrants have been found on freight this year and in previous years?

Mark Harper: I do not think I acknowledged that at all. In terms of the figures that I set out for Calais, 6,000 attempted illegal migrants were intercepted last year and so far this year we are running ahead of that rate, so I am confident that the full-year total will be ahead of it. The performance is improving, therefore. I saw that myself when I visited, and our officers do an excellent job in stopping people even getting to the UK. That is why the juxtaposed controls are so important.

Nick Gibb: Does my hon. Friend share my constituents’ anger about the last Labour Government’s record on immigration? They allowed net immigration to rise from about 35,000 a year to over 200,000 a year in the Labour years. May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary on reducing net immigration by a third in just three years in office?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend is right; that is certainly the view that I get, too. There is one thing that Labour never acknowledge when criticised on this. They
	happily acknowledge that they made mistakes on immigration from eastern Europe, but they forget to tell the public that, under their watch, immigration from outside the EU went up by far more. They have never apologised for that.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister assure me he will not bring these xenophobic “go home” hate vans to Scotland, and will he remove the unwanted, disgraceful “go home” materials from the UKBA office in Glasgow?

Mark Harper: I do not think the hon. Gentleman reflects the views of the public in the way that he characterises those vans. The majority of people in this country want a very robust stance. Asking people who have no right to be in the UK—who are here unlawfully, taking the mickey out of everyone else—to go home, as they should do, rather than forcing the taxpayer to spend up to £15,000 on arresting, detaining and enforcing their removal, is a very sensible thing to do, and I am not going to apologise for it.

David Morris: I represent the port of Heysham, where we have had success in stopping tobacco smuggling. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is good news under your tenure, and would you like to come to the port and see how it does it?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have no plans to do so, I must say, and I am not aware of any tenure of mine, but the Minister may seek to address the matter.

Mark Harper: Mr Speaker, you are, of course, always welcome to visit any of our ports if you want to do so. I would be very pleased to take you on a conducted tour if ever you have a moment and are willing to do so.
	In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, I will look at my schedule of visits. I am always happy to visit our operations around the country to see what our officers are doing on the front line. I find those visits very illuminating, and as I have said, officers take advantage of them to share with Ministers and the director-general both the things that are going well and the things that they think we ought to focus more on.

Mr Speaker: The Minister’s public-spirited generosity is truly boundless.

Khalid Mahmood: What checks have been made on individuals with serious criminal records from eastern Europe entering the UK?

Mark Harper: Checks are made, but to some extent we are dependent on what other countries tell us. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the second generation of the Schengen information system will hugely improve our ability to share criminal record information with our European partners, and when that comes online in the next year or so, it will give us a much greater ability to stop known criminals entering the UK and therefore enable us to protect the border better.

Gavin Barwell: May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to what the NAO had to say about the improvements that Border Force has made at
	Gatwick? Does he agree that that is illustrative of the wider picture, which is that there is absolutely no room for complacency and further improvements are needed, but today our border is more secure than it was under the last Government, when hundreds of thousands of people were allowed to come into this country illegally?

Mark Harper: I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. He might be interested to know that, as announced just today, our Border Force officers seized 8 kg of cocaine, with a street value of up to £800,000, at Gatwick airport. That demonstrates the sort of work that they carry out every day to keep the country secure, both from those who come here who should not be here and from harmful goods that people try to bring into the country.

Andy Sawford: A week after the Home Office’s racist “go home” vans had been touring English cities, I visited the mosque in Corby and was appalled to find outside it the words “go home” in very large letters. That was the act of a tiny minority of people in my community, spurred on by the Government’s racist attack on people in this country.

Mark Harper: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and, if the polling is to be believed, neither do the British people. Most people in this country do not agree with that characterisation of our pilot. It was clearly aimed at people who have no right to be in the country, not at British citizens or people who are here lawfully. We were asking people who were here illegally to leave the country. We are running a pilot and we will look at its results to decide whether or not it should be rolled out. I simply do not agree with him, and I do not think the British public do either.

Andrew Turner: Massive net immigration, 450,000 asylum seekers in a backlog, no transitional controls and the Human Rights Act—that is the shambles we were left by the Opposition. May I say how brilliant it is that the Government are sorting it out?

Mark Harper: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. As I have said, it is a bit rich listening to the Labour party moan about all the things that it left us and we are fixing—that constant refrain applies across all Departments. May I say, in answer to a previous question, that the second generation of the Schengen information sharing system will be online, under the current plan, at the end of October 2014? That will very much improve our ability to deal with criminals from elsewhere in the European Union.

Jim Shannon: Cigarette smuggling through the airports in Northern Ireland is excessive; there is also some indication of paramilitary involvement. Border Force staff have told me that, if there were more staff, they could combat the issue clearly at the airports. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that extra staff are made available in Northern Ireland to take on this issue?

Mark Harper: Obviously, we look at the intelligence available to us, particularly on freight. I am well aware of the potential paramilitary implications in Northern
	Ireland of cross-border smuggling and the fact that organised crime may be funded in this way. So we look at that information on organised crime. We have also created the National Crime Agency, albeit with restrictions on its actions in Northern Ireland in the criminal justice sphere. In the border field, however, the border policing command, the improved intelligence that we get and the increased ability to combat crime will be helpful in combating both the crimes the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and others that cross our borders.

Stephen Metcalfe: The London Gateway port is opening this autumn, so my constituents will welcome the improvements identified by the NAO and the tightening of our border controls. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Labour party to just say sorry for the chaos that it left us to sort out?

Mark Harper: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have looked at some of the plans for the London Gateway, which is an excellent development; it is a really important port. I sense that London Gateway and Felixstowe will be competing with each other as to which is the largest port in the United Kingdom. We work closely with the port operator, and we will properly resource the checks at the port. He can have confidence that we will do that.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents, many of whom work at the controls in Dover and Calais, think that the Government have had real success in stopping illegal entry into this country, after years when people could just basically wander in. However, my constituents do have concerns about smuggling and trafficking, so will the Minister seek to prioritise lorry checking at Dover and investment in smashing international supply chains for traffickers and smugglers?

Mark Harper: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. Again, I had the pleasure of visiting the port in his constituency and talking to officers, who raised some of the points that he has just raised with me about getting that balance right across Border Force between checking people and checking goods. We keep that under review, looking at the intelligence about the threats to the United Kingdom. We deal with that on a daily basis, and I hope that I can give him that reassurance.

Point of Order

Fiona O'Donnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During today’s Prime Minister’s questions, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) about Government support for food banks, the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had enabled Jobcentre Plus staff to make referrals to food banks. The Trussell Trust has informed me that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has actually stopped that happening now and has advised staff that they can no longer make referrals, and that this is causing chaos for hundreds of people in need. I have tabled a parliamentary question on this issue, which should have been answered yesterday—I am still waiting for an answer. Can you assist me by advising how we can ensure that those in this House, volunteers in food banks, Jobcentre Plus staff and, most importantly, those in need have the correct information?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, both for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. She believes that she has identified an inconsistency between what the Prime Minister has told the House and what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said. Those on the Treasury Bench have now heard what the hon. Lady has to say. If Ministers agree with her, no doubt the position will be clarified. Each and every right hon. and hon. Member in this House is responsible for his or her own words. Beyond that, the hon. Lady has identified the fact of the question she wishes speedily to be answered. She is a persistent and assiduous Member, and I am confident that she will soon get an answer, perhaps aided and abetted in pursuit of it by her point of order. If she does not get one, she can table further questions, and I have a sense that this is a bone that she will cling on to for as long as she judges to be necessary.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Executive Pay and Remuneration

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to require that companies’ remuneration committees have employee representation; to require that companies hold an annual binding shareholder vote on executive remuneration; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 105).

Parental Bereavement Leave (Statutory Entitlement)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tom Harris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for statutory entitlement to leave of absence from employment for bereaved parents; and for connected purposes.
	I seek leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give all parents who have suffered the loss of a child a statutory right to paid leave. May I begin by thanking Members from all parts of the House, many of whom are present, for their support for this Bill? First, I wish to highlight the work of Lucy Herd and the Jack’s Rainbow campaign she established after the loss of her 23-month-old son, Jack, in tragic circumstances in August 2010. After his son’s death, Lucy’s partner was given just five days’ compassionate leave before having to return to work. Like many Members of the House I have spoken to, Lucy was surprised that parents did not already have a legal right to paid leave after the loss of a child, and I want to pay tribute to her for working tirelessly to get paid bereavement leave for grieving parents on to the statute book.
	Most of us can imagine nothing more distressing than losing a child. Yet at this traumatic juncture in a parent’s life, there is no guarantee of paid statutory leave in the event of a child’s death. The physical and emotional toll on parents demands such a provision. In the immediate aftermath of a child’s passing, bereaved parents must cope not only with their own grief, but with that of their family. Siblings must be comforted, and family and friends informed. To add to the burden, a great deal of administrative work and other arrangements must be undertaken: a funeral needs to be organised, and schools and benefit offices must be notified. And in the case of a sudden or accidental death, a post-mortem or inquest is required. That may take many months to conclude, prolonging the anguish.
	At present, all employees have the right to take immediate “time off for dependants” under the Employment Rights Act 1996. That is a legal right to unpaid leave to cope with family emergencies. However, there is no set limit on how many days can be taken, only a vague definition of a “reasonable amount of time”. Each employer will have their own bereavement policy, which typically provides for just three to five days’ leave.
	In response to an e-petition calling for statutory bereavement leave, which has received almost 23,000 signatures, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that all requests for leave related to bereavement are best left to employers and their employees to decide between themselves. I understand that the amount of leave needed can vary from one individual to another: some parents will not be able to face going back to work, whereas others may find returning to work a welcome distraction. Grief is not uniform—it affects people in different ways—and each person will need a time specific to them to deal with it.
	Many employers act admirably and offer significant amounts of paid bereavement leave. Regrettably, however, some do not. In a large number of cases, employers have fallen far short of their duties. In one case that was recently televised on an episode of Channel 4’s “Undercover Boss”, a driver for the waste disposal company Biffa was forced back to work just a day after the loss of his daughter. In another tragic case a father, a builder, was expected back to work five days after he lost his daughter to sudden infant death syndrome. Despite feeling unready to return to work, having barely slept, the man was told to resume work or lose his job. On yet another occasion, a parent was given just three days off after the death of his four-year-old son. The funeral was arranged on the fourth day, leading to the man having to use up his paid holiday leave to attend. I wish those were isolated events, but they are not, and I could list many more.
	In their response to the e-petition, the Government stated that they
	“would expect any employer to respond to”
	the loss of a child
	“with sensitivity and flexibility”.
	I find it difficult to believe, given the tragic cases I have just highlighted, that any Minister could find any merit in that statement. All grieving parents should be treated with dignity, and I hope the Government will acknowledge that under the current system that is not happening.
	The Government have stated that it would be difficult to specify statutory bereavement leave entitlement because “limits, standards and definitions” would need to be put in place. The Government have also argued that it would be difficult to define
	“what family relationship would qualify for such leave”
	and that it would be
	“impossible to legislate for every circumstance”.
	I find that argument disingenuous. What limits, standards and definitions would be too complicated to establish in the case of a parent losing a child? Surely the Government should start from the moral case that parents should be afforded time off if their child passes away, and not finding obscure excuses not to act.
	Again, I am under no illusions that the time needed varies from one individual to another, but instead of absolving themselves of all responsibility and leaving this to employers, Ministers should be working towards guaranteeing best practice. That can only be achieved through legislation.
	The government have also argued it would be “impossible to legislate” for
	“every family relationship that would qualify for such leave”.
	How about a simple provision whereby only the parents of the deceased child are afforded statutory leave? That is a straightforward, common-sense way to proceed. I fully acknowledge that long-term staff absenteeism can hit productivity, particularly for small companies, but considering that parents are given paid maternity and paternity leave, it is difficult to argue why grief-stricken parents should not be afforded similar statutory rights. A mother is afforded up to 12 months’ leave for the birth of a child, but is given just three days for her loss. How can that be? On what moral basis can we give precedence to one and not the other?
	I do not intend the measure to place unaffordable costs or unwanted regulation on employers. In fact, the circumstances that would give rise to such leave are as rare as they are tragic, and as I have said, most employers already choose to recognise their responsibilities to their workers. I know the current economic climate is pushing many businesses to the edge, but that also goes for ordinary families across the country. With the cost of living rising, grieving parents should never be forced to choose between meeting their responsibilities to their families and putting food on the table.
	Parents who suffer the loss of a child must be allowed to grieve with dignity. That can only be guaranteed by a statutory right to paid bereavement leave, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Tom Harris, Stella Creasy, Dr William McCrea, Mr Stewart Jackson, Kwasi Kwarteng, Andy Sawford, Mr David Anderson, Iain Stewart, Tracey Crouch, Natascha Engel, Sheila Gilmore and Greg Mulholland present the Bill.
	Mr Tom Harris accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 104).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[6th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Living Standards

Rachel Reeves: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Government is failing to turn things around for the UK’s hard working families; notes that this has been the slowest economic recovery on record, and that the Government is out of touch with the difficulties faced by ordinary families; recognises that average earnings are almost £1,500 a year lower in real terms than they were in 2010; notes in addition that tax and benefit changes since 2010 are costing families an average of £891 in 2013-14 according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies; further notes that the Government is making hard-working families pay more than their share to bring down the deficit while cutting income tax by an average of £100,000 for the 13,000 people with incomes over £1 million; and calls on the Government to ensure that the recovery is strengthened, sustainable and its benefits fairly shared by getting more people into work, bringing forward capital investment, as recommended by the IMF, introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee, backing fair taxes by reintroducing a 10p rate of income tax, paid for by a mansion tax on houses worth over £2 million, taking action on rip-off rail fares and soaring energy bills, standing up for families in the private rented sector, reforming the pensions industry, curbing payday lenders and implementing long-term reforms to banking, infrastructure planning and the skills system.
	During the 2010 election campaign, the Conservative party made the rather bold claim that it would strive to
	“see an economy where not just our standard of living, but everyone’s quality of life, rises steadily and sustainably”.
	Looking back more than three years on, time has served that particular Tory manifesto pledge disastrously, as it has so many others. It is no wonder that people are feeling let down. Today, average earnings are almost £1,500 a year lower than they were when that pledge was made.
	Since the end of 2010, the UK has seen the biggest fall in workers’ income of any country in the G7. Prices have risen faster in the UK than in any other major economy. It is another broken promise from this out-of-touch Prime Minister.

Nick Gibb: Does the shadow Chief Secretary accept Labour’s responsibility for its catastrophic stewardship of the public finances, which left this country with a budget deficit in excess of 11% of GDP?

Rachel Reeves: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a global financial crisis that hit every country in the world, and all countries are now dealing with the aftermath. As the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said, budget deficit reduction has now stalled, not because the Government have not cut public services or put up taxes for ordinary people but because unemployment remains too high and economic growth too weak to get the deficit down.
	This Prime Minister is ripping up the record books when it comes to overseeing falling wages for ordinary workers. Average wages have been falling behind prices for 37 of the 38 months of David Cameron’s Prime Ministership. Which month is the odd one out? It is April of this year, when the bankers reaped the rewards
	of deferring their bonus until George Osborne’s cut to the top rate of tax was implemented. That tax cut resulted in 13,000 people with an income of more than £1 million receiving a tax cut worth on average £107,000. That is four times average earnings in this country.
	The rest, ordinary people, will be on average £6,660 worse off by the end of the Parliament. That is enough to have paid for the family weekly shop for more than a year and a half. Although he has said repeatedly, “We’re all in this together” and “Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden”, how can families trust this out-of-touch Prime Minister, who has prioritised millionaires over millions of working people?

Karen Buck: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would like to welcome her back from her maternity leave. Does she share my concern that 4.8 million people are now earning below the living wage? Does she agree that that is a concern not just for them, because of their low living standards, but for the state and the Government? Social security benefits are having to rise to compensate for that low pay, so the number of in-work claimants of housing benefit alone has gone up to 1 million, with a 50% rise since 2010.

Rachel Reeves: As my hon. Friend will know, the number of people earning less than a living wage has gone up from 3.4 million in 2009 to 4.8 million today, which means that 20% of the work force in this country is now earning less than a living wage. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that that means more pressure on the Treasury, more money spent on tax credits and more money spent on housing benefit. As I said in answer to the earlier intervention, the budget deficit reduction plan has stalled because those payments are going up as the economy is not growing in the way that it was supposed to.

Alok Sharma: The Labour motion contains a long list, including a lot of things that the Government are already doing. I also note that it does not call for a temporary cut in VAT, which was one of Labour’s flagship policies. I know that Labour is a policy-free zone at the moment, but is that another abandoned policy?

Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The list of the Government’s failures could have been an awful lot longer, but we wanted a motion that would fit on the Order Paper. He talks about VAT—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if he listened to my answer. Two years ago the shadow Chancellor said that as an emergency measure VAT should be cut to stimulate the economy. In the two years since, the economy has flatlined. The shadow Chancellor also said that as the economy gradually moved into the recovery stage, the emphasis should be on infrastructure investment, which I think is important. It is because the economy has flatlined for two years that family finances are in the state they are in today.

Mark Tami: Is my hon. Friend not struck by the fact that the interventions from Government Members seem to be addressing everything
	but living standards? The TUC has shown today that Flintshire, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and I represent, has suffered the biggest fall in living standards in Wales.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is interesting that the interventions from Opposition Members refer to the challenges their constituents face owing to falling living standards. It is a shame that hon. Members on the other side of the House want to talk about anything but that.
	I would like to talk about a family I met this week. On my first day back from maternity leave, I visited a family in Thurrock who told me what they were up against. The father, once a partner in a thriving small business, lost his livelihood three years ago during the recession. Desperately trying to keep up their mortgage repayments, he has spent the past three years taking whatever work he could get through employment agencies, often on the minimum wage and often on zero-hours contracts. He recently found a permanent job as a driver which, topped up with evening shifts doing deliveries, gives the family a bit more security, but it falls far short of making full use of his talents and experience.
	The wife abandoned her dream of training to be a primary school teacher so that she could hold on to her relatively secure but modestly paid job in retail. Their daughter is studying for university and should do well, but she worries about fees. All of them pointed to a gaping and growing disconnect between their rates of pay and the costs they face for travel, housing and other basic necessities. Under this Government, the situation is getting worse for such families—families who want to get on in life.

Greg Clark: It is possible that the hon. Lady has said something significant: that the Labour party has dropped its commitment to the temporary VAT cut. Given that as recently as June the shadow Chancellor said that he was committed to it, what has happened since then to cause it to be dropped?

Rachel Reeves: The shadow Chancellor said in his conference speech two years ago that VAT should be reduced from 20% to 17.5% as an emergency measure to stimulate the economy. The reality is that since then the economy has flatlined and we have continued to argue for that, but he has also said that as the economy slowly begins to move into recovery mode—we hope that the growth over the past two quarters will continue—the emphasis should move to infrastructure investment. Were we in government today, our priority would be the £10 billion of infrastructure investment that the International Monetary Fund has called for.

Emily Thornberry: May I bring my hon. Friend back to the real-life situations that real people face? Is she aware that in Islington the cheapest subsidised place for full-time child care costs £164 a week? The minimum wage is £212 a week and the London living wage is £272. Is that reality not why it is so hard for so many people in Britain today to make ends meet?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, since the Government came to office, 400 children’s centres have closed and the child care element of the tax credit has been cut, making it harder and harder for ordinary families to afford child care.
	Under this Government, the situation is getting worse for families such as the one I mentioned and those in my hon. Friends’ constituencies. One in 10 people who want to work more hours cannot get more shifts; 700,000 people are working more than one job, most of them out of desperation rather than choice; and 1 million people are thought to be on zero-hours contracts. Incidentally, zero MPs from the Government side turned up to the Westminster Hall debate on zero-hours contracts organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott).

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is making a strong case. The workers at the Hovis factory in my constituency recently rejected the replacement of full-time staff with agency workers on zero-hours contracts, but does she share my concern that so few people are able to stand up against that and that increasingly it is young people who are trapped in insecure, low-paid work, which means they have no ability at all to plan their lives or to budget?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; she is absolutely right. The Resolution Foundation produced an excellent report, published this morning, warning about low pay becoming entrenched. It does not just affect workers at the start of their careers; low pay this year results in low pay the next year and the year after that, which is particularly worrying.
	Zero-hours contracts often mean that workers are vulnerable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, they are unable to plan for the future and unsure of their ability to pay the rent or the bills each month. Let it be remembered that no Tory MPs or Liberal Democrats, apart from the Minister responding, could be bothered to turn up to debate that issue.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned, we learnt today that 4.8 million people are now earning less than the living wage. Figures I commissioned from the House of Commons Library show that almost 60% of new jobs created since the spring of 2010 have been in low-paid sectors. This is the economy that the Tory-led Government are building: low-paid, part-time and insecure, making life tougher for families.

William Bain: Three in 10 of my constituents who are in work earn less than the living wage. Two weeks ago I spoke with a constituent from Robroyston. He had been a construction worker before the crisis started but is now in insecure, part-time work and facing child care bills of £200 a week. Is it not the case that under this Government the economy is just not generating the number of good-paying jobs that allow families to meet the cost of living?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Two thirds of children growing up in poverty have parents who are in work. I think that goes to the heart of the issue of low pay and its impact on
	families. It is no wonder that payday lenders are among the fastest growing businesses on the high street. Some of them charge interest rates as high as 7,000%. Families, desperate to pay the rent and provide for their children, are being dragged into debt because they are not being paid enough.
	The use of food banks—I am not sure whether the Minister has visited one—continues to rise. In my constituency the main food bank is struggling to find larger premises because demand has outstripped all expectations. St Bartholomew’s church in Armley in my constituency is now distributing food parcels to many desperate families. Its work, and that of St George’s Crypt, is a wonderful example of the active citizenship and community spirit in Leeds, but food banks are damning evidence of the Government’s record on living standards.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Lady is right to focus on the issue of low pay. Will she tell the House what has happened under this Government to the level of income tax paid by someone working full time on the minimum wage?

Rachel Reeves: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the IFS says: the average family is £891 worse off as a result of changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits. That takes into account not only the change in the personal allowance, but the cuts to tax credits and all the other changes, such as the VAT increase, that have put pressure on families. Taken in the round, that is the impact on ordinary working families. The Prime Minister says that he is trying, but that is not enough for a family struggling with the bills and the rent and worrying about the increasing gap between what they take home in pay and the cost of some of the basics.

Alison McGovern: Given what my hon. Friend is saying, did she share my surprise at the Prime Minister’s response to the issue of school uniform costs raised at Prime Minister’s questions today? It was bizarre to hear him dismiss so quickly the cost of school uniforms, which every parent in my constituency knows is a massive issue.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I often hear about that from constituents, particularly this week, when children go back to school. The costs of the summer holidays are past, but those can be very expensive for many families, especially if they receive free school meals and have to provide an extra meal a day during the holidays. The cost of going back to school is also expensive. There is the cost of school uniforms, a new pair of shoes and a school coat—all the basics which sometimes I think the Government just do not understand.
	In the face of such challenges, there is a distinct lack of urgency from the Government. For all the warm words, they do not get the reality facing families. Energy bills are up £300 a year, while energy companies enjoy huge profits.

John Redwood: I am glad that the hon. Lady is highlighting this issue. She is right that in the last couple of years under Labour there was a huge reduction in living standards, and the coalition
	Government have not yet reversed it. Does she now think that her party was wrong to implement policies of very high and rising energy and fuel prices, which are one of the main reasons people are in this bind?

Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have said that we would abolish Ofgem and create a new energy watchdog with real teeth to force energy companies to pass on price cuts when the cost of wholesale energy falls. Meanwhile, under this Prime Minister’s watch, energy giants are enjoying a £3.3 billion windfall. That shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government. Rail fares are another example, increasing by up to 9% a year. We would apply strict caps. We have said that we would introduce a new legal right for passengers to be entitled to the cheapest ticket for their journey; this Government are giving powers back to train operating companies to increase some fares by up to another 5% beyond the cap. Again, that shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government.
	On housing, there are now 3.8 million households in the private rented sector, including more than 1 million with children. Research shows that many are being ripped off through hidden fees and charges costing tenants £76 million a year.

Seema Malhotra: Does my hon. Friend agree that the atrocious slowdown in house building led by this Government has contributed to rising rents, making life incredibly difficult for families and meaning that they cannot do the extras such as getting broadband in their homes, which is vital for their children’s education and their own social inclusion?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have said of the private rented sector that we would require a new national register of landlords.
	This Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. We have said that we would build new affordable homes, and the IMF has said that the Government should bring forward investment in infrastructure. Perhaps we should listen to the IMF.
	The Prime Minister and the Chancellor now claim that their economic plan has worked after all, but two quarters of positive growth do not begin to repair the damage from three years of flatlining. Three wasted years have left permanent damage as businesses have lost vital investment opportunities, and almost 1 million young people are out of work. That is why families are suffering; that is why deficit reduction is so far off track. Yet we have a complacent Government. They have no idea of what they have put families through, no idea of the damage they are still doing, and no plan to put things right. Three years in government and still no British investment bank; three years in government and banking reform is being watered down; three years in government and one in five apprentices say they have received no training; three years in government and the number of 16 to 18-year-old apprentices is down by 13% this year; three years in government and major infrastructure projects are stalled; three years in government and life is getting tougher for ordinary families.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case about the warped priorities of this Government and the consequences and costs for households. It is little wonder that 80% of
	payday loans are for the basic costs she is talking about—housing, travel, rent and food. Is it not another example of this Government’s warped priorities that in three years of clear warnings they have done nothing about the legal loan sharks in our society, and is that not why we would make a difference in government?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has done fantastic campaigning work on that issue. Labour has said that we would cap the cost of credit, as she has called for.
	A one-nation Labour Government would be taking action now to secure the recovery and to build a more balanced economy that boosts the living standards not just for the few at the top but for the many. We would act on the recommendations of the IMF to support and secure the recovery by bringing forward £10 billion of infrastructure investment. We would build 400,000 affordable homes, creating more than half a million jobs and making our economy stronger for the long term. We would support house building, encourage private sector investment, and create apprenticeships. A one-nation Labour Government would be confronting the scandal of youth and long-term unemployment by introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee.

Geraint Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that household lending from banks is at the same sort of level—3% lower than in 2008—but lending to businesses is 30% lower. Is not the real problem that three quarters of new jobs are low-paid because businesses are not being given support by the banks and the Government are not forcing them to act in the interests of high-paid jobs and growth for the future?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have had Project Merlin and the funding for lending scheme, and yet lending to small businesses falls and falls.
	A one-nation Labour Government would offer guaranteed work for young people and those who have been unemployed for over two years—work that they would have to take. We would cut the welfare bill and help people to gain the skills and experience they need to join the work force for the long term. A one-nation Labour Government would reform our banking and energy sectors, improving our infrastructure planning and building a skills system that ensures that everyone can play their part. A one-nation Labour Government would make fairer choices to ensure that the benefits of growth are fairly shared. We would reintroduce the 10p tax rate, helping 25 million basic-rate taxpayers; and we would not be cutting income tax or increasing pension tax relief for the very wealthiest while cutting tax credits for hard-pressed families. Different choices, different priorities: this Government and this Prime Minister do not get it.
	As the LSE Growth Commission said earlier this year:
	“prosperity is strengthened when everyone has the capacity to participate effectively in the economy and the benefits of growth are widely shared”.

Alok Sharma: rose—

Rachel Reeves: I will not give way to Members who have already intervened, but I will give way to those who have not yet made an intervention.
	That will be the difference between us at the next election. We have a Tory party that is out of touch with the challenges facing families and that believes in the outdated orthodoxy that if the rich get richer, the wealth will trickle down; a Tory party that will not stand up to vested interests or stand up for British families; a Tory party that has overseen three years of falling wages; and a Tory party that offered warm words about the living wage at the time of the election, followed by a surge in the number of people working for less than the living wage over the past three years.
	Meanwhile, one-nation Labour, even in opposition, has driven forward this campaign. Labour councils are paying the living wage to their staff and extending it through procurement chains. Fifteen Labour local authorities are now accredited living wage employers, with another 80 in the pipeline. Labour is committed to doing all it can in government to support the spread of the living wage, and is now working with Alan Buckle, deputy chairman of KPMG International, to look how this can best be done.
	All the examples that I am sure we will hear in this debate about the rising numbers of food banks, payday loans, part-time jobs and zero-hours contracts make it all the more galling for the Chancellor to have claimed earlier this summer that wages were rising.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech, to be fair, and she has made some important points about zero-hours contracts. Is she aware that Rhondda council is implementing zero-hours contracts for some of its workers, and it is a Labour-run council? Will she join me in condemning its actions?

Rachel Reeves: Zero-hours contracts can work for some people, but their growth has led to far too many people not having the flexibility they need. No one has said that zero-hours contracts should be banned, but the exploitation of far too many workers is resulting in all the power shifting to employers and not to employees.
	The most recent figures show that real household disposable income fell by 1.7% in the latest quarter—the biggest fall for 26 years. The Chancellor claimed that living standards were improving and that incomes were rising. We all know why he made that desperate claim. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Education says that disposable incomes are rising, but the figures show that they fell by 1.7% in the latest quarter—the biggest fall for 26 years. People will find it very surprising that he claims that living standards are improving when for so many families across the country exactly the reverse is happening. We all know that Lynton Crosby, the head of Conservative electoral strategy, a job he shares with the part-time Chancellor, has told the Prime Minister—just one of the things he has been telling him—that he should be relentlessly focusing on living standards. Yet, as the Secretary of State for Education has shown, the Government are out of touch on living standards, leaving ordinary families out of pocket. It is one rule for millionaires, another for our ordinary workers; one rule for train companies, another for the hard-up commuter; and one rule for the energy companies,
	another for people getting higher bills through their letterboxes. Rents are up, house building is down. We have the worst Prime Minister on living standards since records began. The Prime Minister is out of touch, and hard-working families are out of pocket.

Greg Clark: May I begin by welcoming, on behalf of the whole House, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) back from maternity leave, and congratulating her and her husband on the birth of Anna? We wish them much joy in the years ahead. Now that she has become used to being interrupted by someone making loud, insistent and sometimes incomprehensible demands, I am sure she is glad to have returned to the House of Commons, where such things never happen.
	The necessary condition for rising living standards is, of course, a sound economy. The hon. Lady will be aware that during her absence the economic policy of the Labour party has collapsed. It has spent three years opposing every reduction in public spending that this Government have made; three years calling for more borrowing and more debt; three years denying any responsibility for its failings in government; and three years warning that unless the Government changed course and adopted its so-called fiscal stimulus, the economy would not grow and unemployment would rise. However, because we followed the right policy and did not follow the shadow Chancellor’s advice, and because of the grit and hard work of the ordinary working people of this country, the economy is on the road to recovery.

John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that President Obama’s economic policy, which has been much misrepresented and much praised by the Labour party, has included a far bigger budget deficit reduction, through spending cuts and tax rises, than anything done here, and that the American economy is growing faster for longer?

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend is right that there is a global consensus, if I could put it that way, that responsibility in fiscal matters is the necessary condition to revive the economy. The only exception to that consensus continues to be Opposition Front Benchers.
	We have cut our structural deficit by more than any G7 country. The deficit is forecast to fall this year, next year and the year after that. We have record low interest rates. We are investing more in infrastructure during this Parliament than the previous Parliament.
	It is still a world of economic turbulence—let us be clear about that—but the evidence throughout the past few months is that Britain is on the mend. National income has grown for two successive quarters.

Alison McGovern: The Minister is talking about economic success and sound economic policies. Would he like to come to my constituency in the Wirral and tell my constituents why sound economic policy and a successful economy have led to their wages being cut by £30 a week under his Government?

Greg Clark: As the hon. Lady knows, I spend a lot of time in Merseyside; we met on the other side of the water in Liverpool recently. I would be very happy on one of my visits to Merseyside to meet her and make
	the point that making the economy competitive, including in the north-west and her constituency, and getting people into jobs and bringing unemployment down is the best way that people can build living standards that are sustainably high. I will come on to say a bit more about that.
	There have been 1.3 million jobs created in the private sector, but what has been the Labour party’s reaction, including today, to that news? The first reaction was silence. The entire Labour Front-Bench team went to ground for the summer, although the hon. Member for Leeds West had an excuse. However, three years have passed since she stated in her excellent maiden speech:
	“It would not be responsible or sensible to oppose every spending cut or tax increase.”
	It was in that same maiden speech that she told the Chamber that she would
	“encourage this Government when they get it right”.—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 239.]
	Now would be a good time for her to do what she promised. I would be more than happy to give way to her if she acknowledges that the hard work of the British people is showing success that she did not predict. No answer.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that since his Government took office, GDP per person—productivity per person—and average wages have fallen. We are seeing a glimmer of hope, but the reality is that the 1 million extra jobs are on the same baseline. In other words, that is not success; it is failure. There would have been growth under Labour, as was the case up to 2010.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman parts from his Front-Bench colleagues and at least acknowledges that there is progress. He calls it a glimmer of hope, but I think the 1.3 million people employed in new private sector jobs regard it as much more than that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the first step to creating sustainably high living standards is to get people into work and into good jobs. I will say more about that in a moment.

Chris Williamson: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the Conservative manifesto from 2010? It said:
	“We want to see an economy where not just our standard of living, but everyone’s quality of life, rises steadily and sustainably.”
	Is it not a fact that 20% of the British work force are paid below the living wage and that 60% of the jobs that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to are themselves low paid? How is that a mark of success when people are being forced into poverty wages?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the more thoughtful members of his party. If he looks at the work of respected think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation, which does some excellent work, he will see that the problem of low wages is affecting many western countries and has been for some time. In fact, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) pointed out in the summer of 2010 that the problem under the previous Government was that hard-working families who played by the rules and paid
	their taxes did not get a great deal back, that their pay had not increased much and that they thought there was fundamental unfairness in the system. This is a problem that afflicts many western countries. It started under the previous Government. I will come on to explain how the best way to pursue the matter is to raise sustainably high living standards.

Karen Buck: Does it cause the Minister any concern at all that since his Government took office in 2010 there has been a 50% rise in the number of working people who require help with their housing costs and that this Government will spend £14 billion more on supporting private tenants with their housing costs than the previous Labour Government?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady and my party share the ambition of ensuring that people can earn a living that allows them to pay their and their families’ costs, but the question is how we get there. If Members oppose the reforms necessary to create that possibility they will not make any progress, given the financial situation we inherited.

John Redwood: I am glad that the Minister has said that we share Labour’s ambition for more people to have better paid jobs. Of course we want people to be better paid, but is not the best way for people to get a better paid job to start with a low-paid job and work their way up and get mentored and trained in the workplace?

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Opposition Members should not be so disparaging about the chances that are being given to millions of people to find work, make progress, learn skills and acquire the necessary experience.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Greg Clark: I want to make some progress.
	The Labour party’s policy, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is to increase Britain’s debt by £200 billion. That would be ruinous, because—this is linked to living standards—that borrowing would fall to the ordinary working people of this country. They would suffer a double hammer blow: more money would be taken out of their incomes to repay debt and there would be higher interest payments on mortgages and business loans. A 1% increase in interest rates would cost householders with a £100,000 mortgage £1,000 a year.
	Today and throughout the past three years, the Labour party has persisted in talking down the economy, but its policies would take down the country. In fact, one of the biggest sources of concern in the British economy today is the total absence of a credible economic policy from the people who in 20 months’ time aspire to be the Government of this country. That is of concern even to people in the Labour party. Even the noble Lord Mandelson said recently that the risk of pursuing Labour’s economic policy was too great:
	“I don’t think you can really take a chance, I think the markets, whose confidence in us to pay back what we borrow—that confidence is the determining factor.”
	He went on to say that
	“a lurch in policy…would be quite a risk which I would not blame the chancellor for refusing to take.”
	By the way, Lord Mandelson is a friend of the shadow Chancellor. He said:
	“I also happen to like him…well, more than I used to.”
	We are here to discuss the cost of living and the cost of living is Labour’s legacy. Of course families are finding it tough. The Labour party talks about the cost of living without any mention of its record in government on living standards. It was the Labour Government who doubled council tax. Even in the depths of the recession, when my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) presciently asked them to consider freezing council tax, as this Government have gone on to do, they flatly refused.

Andrew Bridgen: On that point, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Conservative-run North West Leicestershire district council, which has frozen council tax for four years running, and in condemning the leader of the Labour group, who suggested that we should raise council tax by 2% this year?

Greg Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s council. We know that council tax is an important bill that people face. That is why when we came to office, knowing the pressures faced by ordinary working people and families, we froze it.
	The same is true of the Labour party’s record on fuel duty. Its fuel duty escalator meant that what working people paid to fill up their car rose by more than inflation every year. Petrol would be 13p a litre more if Labour had stayed in office.
	Energy prices for the home escalated under Labour. Between 1997 and 2010, the average domestic gas bill doubled. These matters were raised in our earlier exchanges, but the hon. Member for Leeds West omitted to say who the Energy Secretary was in the last Government. It was the current Leader of the Opposition. When I shadowed him across the Dispatch Box, these issues were not addressed, despite our urging him to do so.
	In its 13 years in office, the Labour party failed to safeguard pensions. In one notorious year, it increased the state pension by 70p. This Government have restored the link to earnings. Labour presided over the biggest fall in the number of homes being built since the 1920s, with the consequence that rents have risen and, for the first time in 100 years, the proportion of people who own their own home has fallen.

Gavin Barwell: My right hon. Friend is doing a very effective job of comparing the record of Labour in office with the rhetoric that we have heard today. The shadow Chief Secretary talked about priorities. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what was the effect of the Labour Government’s abolition of the 10p rate of income tax? Which sections of society were made worse off by that decision?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, it was the ordinary working people who were struggling to get by who were penalised by that change. We have not had an apology for that.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talks about raising VAT. It would be interesting to hear from him whether the Labour party would reverse the rise in VAT.

Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how much the rise in VAT has cost the typical family?

Greg Clark: It is 20 months before the election and the Labour party cannot say whether it would keep or reverse the rise in VAT.
	The Labour party established the beer duty escalator, the council tax escalator, the fuel duty escalator and the biggest escalator of them all—the deficit escalator. The deficit trebled in its last two terms in office and that all has to be repaid by the hard-working people of this country. The facts are stark: the deficit that we inherited equates to about £6,000 per household every year. Of course it is painful to find an average of £6,000 per household in revenues and savings, but that is the effect of the previous Government’s profligacy.

Emily Thornberry: rose—

Debbie Abrahams: rose—

Greg Clark: I will give way to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) because she has been patient.

Emily Thornberry: I wonder whether I might drag the right hon. Gentleman back from the political knockabout to the realities of life. A point was made earlier about the number of working people who are now dependent on housing benefit. Is he aware that the cheapest four-bedroom flat to rent on Rightmove yesterday cost £440 a week? Given that the minimum wage is £212 a week, how can people live?

Greg Clark: Where has the hon. Lady been for the past three years? We have reformed the planning system. Since the national planning policy framework was adopted, which I had something to do with, planning permissions for new homes have risen by 22%. That is the action that is required if the problems that she identifies are to be solved.
	The Labour motion talks about the standard of living, but no Government in living memory have done more to scupper the standard of living of ordinary working people in this country than the last Labour Government.

Stella Creasy: The Minister wants to talk about his Government’s record, so let us talk about the last six months alone, during which the proportion of people in this country who are worried about their personal debt has risen to 50%—20 million people in this country are desperately worried about the level of personal debt that they are in. Does he accept that his low-wage economy is part of the reason why so many families in this country are lying awake at night, frightened about how they will put food on their table and make it through to the end of the week?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady is an experienced and effective campaigner on debt issues, but she will know that the explosion in debt happened under the last Labour Government. The reforms that we have made in financial services, the line-by-line scrutiny of which the hon. Member for Nottingham East participated in, have improved the regulation of such matters. She is right in the sense that the only way of ensuring that people can confidently earn enough to support themselves and their families is for them to be in work and in a good job. That is the purpose of our reforms.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is right to identify low wages as a problem. They are a particular problem in the parts of the country that have the highest living costs because we have a national minimum wage. The second part of the problem is the high level of tax that the Government levy on people who are in low-paid work. Will my right hon. Friend therefore answer the question that the shadow Chief Secretary ducked and tell us what has been the change in the income tax bill for somebody who works full time on the national minimum wage?

Greg Clark: Of course, the amount of income tax that is paid by somebody on such modest earnings has been halved. That is the purpose of our reforms. Those people are better off.
	Every Member of the House wants the standard of living enjoyed by the people of this country to rise. That is the purpose of economic policy. Let us therefore have a serious analysis of how that can be achieved.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Greg Clark: I will make some progress, then I will give way.
	We must have a serious analysis of how that can be achieved in a way that is substantial and sustained. The first requirement is to do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to earn a good living. The second is to do everything that we can to reduce the costs that people face—especially those that are imposed by the Government.
	On the first requirement, if people are to earn enough to generate a good standard of living, our country needs to be competitive against its rivals. The UK is at the top of KPMG’s league of the best countries in which to do business, ahead of Switzerland, the USA and France for the first time ever.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to the Minister for the point that he is making about international competitiveness. How did Labour’s 12 increases in fuel duty improve competitiveness and the living conditions of British families?

Greg Clark: Those increases hit people in two ways: they hit the people who paid the duty when they filled up their tanks and they hit small businesses who employed people. It was a disastrous policy, which is why we scrapped it.
	We will shortly have the joint lowest corporation tax in the G20. Last year, Britain was the biggest destination in Europe for inward investment. That competitiveness is creating jobs—jobs that give people incomes. Since
	2010, 1.3 million jobs have been created in the private sector. More people are working in Britain than ever before and we have the lowest proportion of workless households for 17 years. There have been more net new private sector jobs in the past three years than there were in the previous 10 years under the Labour party.
	People’s living standards are higher if they are in work, but I also want people to be able to earn higher wages. The only way to achieve that is to improve the levels of education and skills in the workforce. That is why the reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education are so vital. It is why we need rigour in the exam system. It is why his announcement this week that we must ensure that people leave school qualified and skilled in all ways, but especially in maths and English, is so important. It is why the 86% increase in new apprenticeship starts between 2009-10 and 2011-12 is so important.

Barbara Keeley: I would not want to waste the opportunity, with the Secretary of State for Education in his place, to raise again the cost of living issue of school uniforms, which the Prime Minister ignored earlier as though there were no issue to consider. In Manchester, one of the new academy secondary schools is charging £300 for a boy’s uniform. Families are really struggling, as I mentioned to the Prime Minister, although he did not seem to take the point on board. That cost is pushing a lot of families into debt and payday loans. The Financial Secretary talked about families struggling to get by, and this month some families are struggling to get by because they have had to shell out £300 to send their children back to school. What does the Secretary of State for Education have to say about that?

Greg Clark: I suggest that the hon. Lady turn up to Education questions if she wants to question the Secretary of State, but since her question refers to the cost of living, I hope she would not want the policies on such matters for every school in the country to be set from the Department for Education. It would be an interesting statement from the Labour party if it did want that. My experience of good schools in my constituency that have a uniform code, which parents welcome, is that they typically have schemes and mechanisms to help people obtain uniforms if they find themselves in financial difficulties.
	Getting good jobs requires investment in skills and education for those in work. For those who are retired, incomes have been helped by the biggest ever increase in the state pension.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Greg Clark: The hon. Member for Leeds West did not give way to Members who had already intervened once. Given the number of Members who want to speak, I think I will do the same thing. However, I will give way to my friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) before I make some progress.

Jack Dromey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I first correct the figures that he gave earlier? Under the Labour
	Government there were 2 million new homes; it was under the current Government that house building fell to its lowest level since the 1920s.
	This is “Yes to Homes” week, and housing organisations all over Britain have predicted that without fresh measures by way of investment in housing supply, rents will rise by 46% by 2020 and the price of buying a house by 42%. Why not heed the advice of the International Monetary Fund, which has said that if we want a serious, sustainable economic recovery, £10 billion should be invested in our economy? Why not invest that in building 400,000 affordable homes and creating 600,000 jobs and apprenticeships?

Greg Clark: I have enjoyed debates with the hon. Gentleman over the years, and he will know that no one in the Government is more committed than I am to increasing the number of homes. He knows that our reforms to planning—I have heard some recent statements suggesting that the Labour party may wish to resile from them—are increasing the number of planning permissions given for new homes. I would have thought that he would welcome that.
	The Government are relentless in driving up employment and the quality of skills, which are the foundations of high living standards. However, we must also act to reduce the costs that people have to pay, where the Government can influence those costs. A credible plan for reducing the deficit has kept interest rates low, as the IMF has acknowledged. We must not underestimate the importance of those low interest rates to the monthly budgets of thousands of families. Indeed, as I said, if mortgage interest rates were to rise by just 1%, average mortgage bills would increase by about £90 each month.
	We have enabled local authorities to freeze council tax for five years, meaning that the average person pays £200 less each year than they would under the Opposition’s plans. We are increasing the tax-free personal allowance to £10,000 from next year, meaning that the average person will pay nearly £500 less each year than they would under the Opposition’s plans. We have frozen fuel duty, meaning that the average person pays nearly £170 less each year than they would under the Opposition’s plans.
	On top of that, we have capped rail fares, extended free nursery care, taken action to reduce energy costs and cut the tax paid on a pint of beer. Under the Opposition’s plans, it would cost more to drive a car, more to take a train, more to heat a home and more to drink a pint. In fact, if we add it all up, someone with a car to run, a mortgage to pay and a home to heat would be about £2,000 worse off every year under the Labour party, yet it has the audacity to claim that things are getting worse for millions of working families.
	The combination of rising employment and the increase in the personal allowance meant that last year, real household disposable income rose by 1.4%. However, there is more to do, and as the recovery continues we want to see living standards rise. The people of Britain know that there is no shortcut to higher standards of living and no magic money tree. They know that the only way is for us to live within our means; invest in education and training; spend prudently, not profligately; and exercise the same values in government as people do in their own lives. That is what this Government are
	doing, that is the path to prosperity for all, and that is why a good future awaits the people of this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. A large number of Members wish to participate in the debate, so there will be a time limit of six minutes on all Back-Bench contributions, starting with the next speaker.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Government’s response to this timely Opposition motion is becoming clear already. They intend to airbrush the past three years from history as far as they can, as if they did not exist, and say, “We are now finally on the road to growth, and all will be well.” I have two comments to make about that.
	First, today’s debate is about what has happened to those on average and below-average incomes over the past three years. It is clear that whatever recovery is eventually secured—all economies eventually recover, even though we maintain that the cuts have been too far, too fast and too deep—the essential thing is to see that the excessive burden that has been borne by those on average and below-average incomes is rectified.
	Let us look at the incontrovertible facts about what has happened to wages under the current Government over the past three years. Wages are down by an average of almost £1,500 a year, prices have risen faster in the UK than in any other major economy and energy bills have risen by more than £300 since the general election. Those are facts, and I do not think anybody in the House would dispute them. Government Members may argue that it was all necessary, and that even though the burden has fallen heavily on those least able to bear it, it was all part of a plan that had to be implemented. We do not accept that, and we maintain our criticisms.

Harriett Baldwin: During the summer, in one of his many mansions, was the hon. Gentleman able to read the book published by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)? It states that
	“From 2004 onwards”,
	median families
	“were feeling the strain…people were working just as hard as ever—but were not getting on.”
	This is not a new issue, and the hon. Gentleman may recall that Treasury officials were examining it during his party’s time in government.

Geoffrey Robinson: I hope that the Treasury is examining how we can ensure that there is a fair spread of the benefits that will come in the recovery, and how we can sustain that recovery. I will come to that in a moment.
	In the global race on living standards, the UK is doing worse than any of our competitors and has had the biggest fall in worker income of any country in the G7. Why is that? Because none of the forecasts made for the past three years has been met, since the Chancellor announced with great fanfare the plan for the rectification of the deficit and the return to growth. He has not come anywhere near fulfilling a single one of the predictions he made then for any year on investment, growth or
	employment, which I will come to in a moment. It is clear that the failure of the Government’s policy has caused terrible burdens to fall on those least able to bear them. They have failed in their policy, their objectives and the tasks that they set for each sector of the economy. I do not know whether it had to be that way or whether they will repeat that failure, but personally I think it was unnecessary.
	We all hope—no one more fervently than the Opposition—that that is behind us now and we can look forward to a recovery that can be sustained. We do not want the Government killing off this recovery like they killed off the one that they inherited from us back in May 2010. [Interruption.] They killed it off. The economy was beginning to grow, under a stimulus. They killed off that recovery, so let us see whether they can kill off this one. No doubt they will try. To avoid that happening, the Government must change course on several fronts, and they must do it quickly, even now.

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: In a moment. The Government cannot just sit back, say it will all be glorious, accept the fine new forecast in the way they accepted the previous one, and think, “That’s going to happen.”
	Before we come back to the inevitable party points that each side will make, I wish to raise one serious issue before the House, which is the role of real wages in economic recovery. As has been said, and as the figures bear out, the burden has been borne heavily by those on average and below-average wages. The fall in wages is significant; it is the largest in any of the major economies and I think the largest in the UK for probably 100 years. That must be rectified because it will be a drag on our ability to recover if we remain in a low-wage, low-skill economy. I hope that point is taken up by the Treasury in all seriousness, as well as by British industry. We have got to upskill unless we want to engage in a race to the bottom of a low-wage economy, which we will never win.

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will give way in a moment as I said I would. There is time enough. Even China is now coming under pressure from Indonesia and Vietnam. If we try to get down to the levels of wages there, we will not do it; the recovery must be about a higher skilled, more productive economy in which rising incomes play a vital role. Rising incomes, particularly at average level, will be vital in sustaining the recovery. I hope that point is taken and will receive a serious reply.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has provided various revisionist explanations for what his Government did for 13 years. Is he aware that in my constituency of Gloucester, some 6,000 jobs in business were lost during the 13 years of the Labour Government? Since the last election, some 2,000 jobs have been created and 1,240 new apprentices started last year alone. He is right to flag up that some wages are low, and we would all like them to be higher, but what does he say about the prospects for those 6,000 people who lost their jobs, and for the 2,000 new jobs created since the election? Surely that is the starting point for an improved life.

Geoffrey Robinson: The hon. Gentleman represents Gloucester, which is quite a successful manufacturing base in that part of the world. Manufacturing got hit, and if we do not support it through our policies more directly than we have before, it will continue to be hit as is happening under this Government. Let us look at the 1.2 million jobs. That is something of an achievement, but 60% or 70% have low pay. There is no long-term future in having low pay in those jobs; we must start to move away from that.
	I am pleased that apprenticeships are doing so well for those aged over 20, but among the crucial group of those aged 16 to 20, as the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, there has been a 13% fall in the number of apprenticeships. That is a terrible figure and we need more skills and more apprenticeships where it matters. Meanwhile, as we all know, unemployment among the young has risen. When we were in government we created 2 million new jobs and had the highest level of employment ever in the country. The trouble was, quite honestly, that too many went to immigrants, and nothing was done to bring up the skills, willingness and ability of our youngsters to take on a higher proportion of the jobs created.

Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way given that the Minister refused point blank to let me intervene, even after several attempts. Does my hon. Friend agree that the employment rate is still lower now than it was in 2008, for all that Government Members like to claim that we are on the road to recovery?

Geoffrey Robinson: I entirely agree and my hon. Friend makes a very telling point. There has been one area where we can honestly say the Government appear to have done better than we might have expected. On every other economic front, including that raised by my hon. Friend, their record is worse.
	Let us look to the future. What do we need to ensure we sustain this recovery? First, we need the Government to accept the role of real incomes rising—a vital element in sustaining the recovery—and higher productivity to accompany that. Although we have done well in some areas of employment, productivity has gone down. We need the Government to accept the £10 billion infrastructure recommendations by the International Monetary Fund, and we need a housing programme and for building to get under way. All those things remain to be done. We need direct action. We should get rid of Ofgem, bring in a new regulator, and have direct action on energy and transport prices. Such a programme could sustain the recovery and we would see a slow build-up of real wages, which have been so devastatingly hit by Government policies.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Living standards, of course, form part of a context in which the wider economy must be considered. I notice that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leaving the Chamber, but I wanted to address some of her remarks. She was, I felt, very ungracious in the way she took interventions from Government Members. I am pleased to see her back after her long break and I wish her all the best, but
	she did not do enough to observe the courtesies of the House in listening to other points of view.
	The first point to remember is that the economy is recovering, despite the protestations, gloom and doom and talking down of the economy by Opposition Members. The OECD and Office for National Statistics have doubled their forecasts for 2013 growth, and the OECD is even suggesting that Britain will outstrip her competitors in economic growth. That should be welcomed on all sides of the House.
	On living standards, the Labour party has engaged in a series of speeches that have shown collective amnesia, and it has been deeply hypocritical, complacent and unapologetic about the appalling record it left us in 2010. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Labour Government left a note that suggested there was no money, simply because they had spent it all. They spent and spent and spent, and that is the context in which our debate about living standards in Britain must take place.

Fiona O'Donnell: Perhaps now the hon. Gentleman can prove that he does not suffer from short-term memory loss and tell us by how much wages have fallen in real terms since his Government came to power.

Kwasi Kwarteng: What I will tell the hon. Lady is that it is particularly nauseating to listen to Labour Members talk about increased living costs when under their Government fuel duty was increased 12 times. It is not right for members of the public and people listening to this debate to look on those remarks, when Labour increased fuel duty 12 times without any respite.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) makes a perfectly fair point about wages, but does my hon. Friend think there is some hypocrisy there, given that just about the only cut that those on the Opposition Front Bench have supported is the freezing of public sector pay over a number of years? It is clear that even under Labour, many people would have seen a real-terms reduction in wages.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Absolutely right. My hon. Friend mentions hypocrisy, and I think that has framed the approach of Labour Members on this issue. They have spoken really from either side of their mouths. On one hand they decry the difficult measures that we have had to implement and, on the other, they refuse to apologise or accept any responsibility for the appalling fiscal situation that they bequeathed to this Government.

Gloria De Piero: How did the hon. Gentleman feel when he learned in April that bonuses in finance and business services rose by 82.2% compared with the same month a year ago?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will remember that the bonus pool under the Labour Government was far bigger. It was outrageous. Indeed, it was Lord Mandelson who suggested that he was very relaxed about people getting “filthy rich”. That was the legacy of new Labour:
	debt, credit, massive bonuses and a totally irresponsible way of running the economy. Such irresponsibility is largely responsible for the situation we are in. We have had to follow a deficit reduction strategy. That is working and the deficit has fallen by a third over the past three years, from £160 billion to about £115 billion. That is a signal success. We see not only deficit reduction, but—the jury is out on this, but I am confident—economic recovery. This is very successful stewardship of the economy. It is not only Government Members who agree with that assessment. Let us look at the opinion polls. Even though it is true that Labour is maintaining a slim lead, on the economic question and the question of the credibility of economic policy, Labour, and the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition as a team, consistently under-poll the Chancellor and Prime Minister as economic stewards, because the public have not forgotten the appalling mess that Labour left behind. Despite three difficult years, the public refuse to accept that Labour has any ideas or solutions to our difficult problems. They are well aware of the appalling fiscal situation that Labour Members left behind.
	Let us look at some of the figures on fuel duty increases. We have suspended the fuel duty escalator and prices have not gone up. We have taken many low-paid people out of the tax system. People will recognise that the Government’s efforts have been partly successful. We have not reached the promised land and the goal that we set, but we are getting there. People realise that any return to the Labour policies of spend, borrow and spend even more will be fatal to the recovery. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) mentioned killing off the recovery. The quickest way to kill off any recovery would be a return of the Labour party to government. In my view and the view of many of my constituents, that would be a form of national economic suicide. As a nation, we must address and debate living standards, but we must also put them in the context of the appalling economic and fiscal situation that Labour Members left behind. It is hypocritical and disingenuous of them to blame the coalition Government for the mess they created and bequeathed.
	Finally, I should say a few words of optimism. It is clear that there is a renewed sense of optimism in the economic community. I am not rash enough to suggest that the path ahead will be smooth. There will be checks and times when there are doubts, but the general trend and direction is clear. The latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, from March—it seems likely to be upgraded—predicted that average earnings in 2014 would increase faster than consumer prices index inflation. It also predicts that, by 2016, living standards will be growing twice as fast as inflation. We might well have reached an inflection point that will prove the success and wisdom of the Government’s polices.

Russell Brown: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on returning to her Front-Bench duties, although I appreciate that she has had to leave the Chamber for the time being.
	When I first came to the House 16 years ago, people throughout the country and not just in my constituency, and especially women, were holding two or even three part-time jobs to make ends meet. The history is that
	1997, when Labour came to power, was not a good time. It is true—I suspect Government Members would agree—that people were looking for a change, which is what happened in 1997.
	Individuals and families were looking for some security and certainty in their lives. In all honesty, that is no different from what businesses were looking for. Businesses were looking for confidence. At the end of the day, if there is confidence in the business world, businesses will in turn believe that they can take that little gamble and create jobs. That is what happened over a sustained period when Labour came to government. Here we are in 2013. Despite what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) has said, the country is looking again for those things. The country and businesses are looking for confidence, and families and individuals are looking for security and certainty, to take them forward through these difficult times.
	I do not deny that the prospects are very good in some parts of the country, but that is not true of many areas. The situation in communities is patchy. Back in ’97, there was a rapid reduction in unemployment. Department for Work and Pensions staff at the time were able to assist individuals who had been long-term unemployed. People who suspected that they would never find a job were finding work.
	Where are we on living standards? We can talk about incomes, but income is not the only aspect of a living standard. The equation must include what people need to spend regularly. That is why people’s living standards in many areas are falling. I regret to say that we are returning to people, especially women, having to hold down two and three part-time, low-pay jobs to make ends meet.

Gavin Barwell: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that, in his opinion, between 1997 and 2010, many hard-working people did not have to hold down multiple jobs to make ends meet?

Russell Brown: Yes, that was beginning to happen again, but not at the rate we have experienced from 2010 onwards.

Ian Mearns: I had the great privilege of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency during the summer break. It must be difficult for people on part-time work to put together the combinations of part-time jobs in areas where the economic community is so disparate. I visited Stranraer, Wigtown and Withorn. They are relatively small places, and putting together the combination of part-time jobs to make a living wage must be very difficult in such a community.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting—I appreciate that he did not tell me that he was coming, but it was on unofficial business. He is right that, in that remote rural locality, jobs are few and far between.
	My area lost 1,300 local authority jobs over nine quarters. In those same nine quarters—between June 2010 and September 2012—we lost 2,000 private sector jobs, including quality jobs. The figures are staggering. The average wage in Dumfries and Galloway is some 24% less than the national average. In May 2010,
	460 people were long-term unemployed; there are now 970. Jobseeker’s allowance claimant numbers are above the UK average.
	Worst of all—the House needs to take this to heart—is youth unemployment. Under the previous Conservative Government, we almost ended up with a complete lost generation. In my area, we have 8.9% youth unemployment. That is not acceptable when the Scottish average is 7.4% and the UK average is 6.2%. I will not stand by and allow the youth—those aged 18 to 25—to sit wasting. That is why, two weeks ago, I held a cross-party summit in my area to discuss the difficulties that we face.
	I do not have the answers, but welfare reform has played a big part in what is happening on our high streets. We have seen the Government freeze benefits at 1% because they thought that it was the right thing to do, but all that has done is take money out of the local economy.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: No, because the hon. Gentleman would eat up my time, and I am not prepared to allow that to happen. I need all the time I have got.
	Taking money away from the poorest, who would have spent it on the high street, is bound to have an impact on what is going on. It takes even more jobs out of the economy.
	Let me put the record straight on energy and fuel costs. The hon. Gentleman made a point about fuel costs—[Interruption.] Never mind the hand signals. On 11 occasions over nine years, the Labour Government froze the planned fuel duty increase. When Labour came to government in 1997, duty and tax on fuel was 78%: when it left government, duty and tax was 66%. Let us not forget that the price of fuel sometimes increases because the price of oil increases.
	I regret to say that in Dumfries and Galloway 41% of all households are in fuel poverty, with the average in Scotland being 28%. I am not boasting about those figures: I am frankly ashamed of them. We are a low-wage economy, after decades of low pay in agriculture and tourism.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who chairs the all-party group on off-gas grid. She has made a valiant effort, with support from the all-party group, to get the Minister with responsibility to make early payments of the winter heating allowance to those people who want to use it in time to buy cheaper fuel. Regrettably, her effort has failed, as the Minister has declined to make early payments.
	Things may be going well in some Conservative Members’ constituencies, but the picture across the country is patchwork, and that should not be forgotten.

Harriett Baldwin: When I saw the wording of the Opposition’s motion today, I simply could not believe its sheer gall, or the absolute nerve they had in making the points they made. In fact, in honour of Jewish new year tomorrow, I will say that they have incredible chutzpah in putting this motion on the Order Paper today. If there is one sure way in which
	the Government can reduce the living standards of their citizens, it is by living way beyond their means. A deficit is the spending reductions or tax rises that the Government are not prepared to impose today but willing to pass on to future generations.
	I do not ask the House to believe me on that point, but to believe the recently retired Lord King, who has made it very clear that today’s living standard squeeze is a consequence of the Labour party’s policies. In 2011, he said:
	“The real consequence of this crisis is only now beginning to be felt. They weren’t felt in 2008, they are only now being felt.”
	What we have seen was the consequence of the previous Government, who left this Government with a note saying, “I’m sorry, Chief Secretary, there is no money left.”

Ian Mearns: It is a little rich for the hon. Lady to suggest chutzpah on our behalf. I live in the midst of an Orthodox Jewish community in my constituency of Gateshead. It is a learning community, given the local colleges, and contains considerable poverty. The people there would probably disagree with her.

Harriett Baldwin: What would that community feel about a Government who left a deficit of 11.8% of GDP? This Government have reduced it by a third, to 7.4%, although there is still a long way to go. More than any community, that community would understand the importance of living within one’s means. We need to judge the Government by their track record, compared with the previous Government.

Charlie Elphicke: The issue is not just the deficit. Real earnings did not rise from 2004 onwards under the previous Government’s mismanagement. We still see the scars of the terrible recession of 2008 in the earnings lag, which continues to this day and which we are battling to turn around.

Harriett Baldwin: I agree, so let us turn to the track record of what we have tried to do in government to tackle the very issues raised in today’s debate. We all want to see our constituents prosper and have more money each month to pay their bills. The most important bill that they have to pay each month—on pain of imprisonment if they do not pay it—is their income tax bill. In 2007, people had to start paying income tax once their income rose to just over £5,000. By the end of the next tax year, people will be able to take home £10,000 before they have to pay income tax. That is a halving of the income tax bill for the hard-working person who works full time on the minimum wage. It is also a 20% real-terms reduction in the tax bill of someone on median income. That is the action that a responsible Government can take.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Harriett Baldwin: I am sorry, but I have now taken my fair share of interventions.
	One of the other large bills that people pay is the council tax. Under the previous Government—let us judge them by their deeds—council tax went up by
	100%. This Government have managed to hold it broadly steady, which has meant a 9.5% real-terms reduction. Under the previous Government, fuel taxes were increased on 12 separate occasions for my constituents. Indeed, the previous Chancellor legislated for a further 13p in tax increases on fuel, which happily we have been broadly able to avert—an 11% real-terms reduction in that important bill, or a saving of £7 every time people fill up their tanks.
	Mortgage rates are also at a record low. That important monthly bill would be £1,000 a year more if interest rates were to increase by 1%. That is a modest estimate of the increase if the Opposition were to borrow the additional £200 billion estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The cost of child care is extortionate, and I can speak from personal experience on that, but it went up 77% from 2004 under Labour. The Government have taken many steps to try to increase the availability of free child care for our constituents. For those on median incomes who find that it is not economic to return to work, we will make the cost deductible against tax from 2015.
	We have tried to take steps on the unmanageable expected costs of social care expenses, and we have also made sure that pensioners will benefit each year from an increase in their pensions that at least matches inflation—something that will reassure them over time, compared with the 75p increase that they once received under the previous Government.
	Those are the steps that we have taken to address the cost of living for our constituents. We also want to invest in skills, apprenticeships and the measures that will help people to move up the ladder of responsibility at work and take on higher-paid jobs over time. Our welfare reforms have made the incentive to work much stronger, so that the number of households with no one in work has dropped to a record low.
	Growing private sector employment and record growth in the manufacturing index, which came out yesterday, are what will allow businesses to grow, to grow in confidence and to pay their employees more over time. That is how to tackle the cost of living for our constituents—not by taxing more and borrowing more as the Opposition propose. We must have a credible and responsible Government who keep their own costs down. We must never give the power to tax and spend back to the Labour party, with its damaging track record.

Lisa Nandy: I do not need to tell most Opposition Members about the crisis unfolding for individuals, families and whole communities, including in my constituency of Wigan. It is not just that unemployment has hit communities like mine hard and had an impact on people’s living standards, it is that the unemployment figures mask the reality facing many families of cuts to pay and hours, which have had a devastating impact on their daily lives. Many Opposition Members are also familiar with the picture we are seeing in Wigan, where payday lenders have sprung up to fill empty shops on the high street and are charging extortionate rates of interest, and where the queues at food banks, such as the Brick in the centre of my constituency, are lengthening by the day. In the past eight weeks, the Brick has given out more than 1,000 food parcels—it is running out of food.
	We are now in a situation where one in five children in Wigan arrives at school too hungry to learn. Across Greater Manchester and Greater London, that figure rises to nearly 50%, leaving teachers having to feed children out of their own fridges and their own pockets.

Kwasi Kwarteng: rose—

Lisa Nandy: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I would be grateful if he told me what he thinks his Government should do about it.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not recognise that if over 10 years a Government consistently spend a lot more than they get in and leave a huge deficit, any attempt to deal with that deficit will be difficult? Does she not accept that basic point?

Lisa Nandy: I find the hon. Gentleman’s comment alarming. Perhaps it is time for Government Members to attend an economics course or, more pertinently, a history lesson. If we fail to learn what happens when considerable deregulation causes a global financial crisis—supported and egged on by Conservative Members—we will be condemned to repeat it.
	I was telling the House about the indignity, anguish and anxiety that afflict many of my constituents, and that daily grind people down. There are a number of things the Government could do, and I want to address them in the short time that I have. First, the Government should and could take immediate action to create jobs by investing in infrastructure. We badly need new schools, we badly need new homes and, in some areas, we badly need new hospitals. Constituencies like Wigan, where the construction industry has always been important to the local economy, need that investment, not just because we will get the buildings we need but because it will provide jobs and apprenticeships for young people.
	Construction used to be one of the key routes for young people leaving school to get into the labour market and learn skills that could take them beyond the sort of low-paid work that hon. Members have described. If the Government were to take action immediately, it would be a huge relief not just to me but to the 1 million young people who are out of work and who ought to be a national priority. We know that this should be a national priority, because we know what happens when young people are left out of work: they suffer prolonged periods of unemployment, insecure employment and wage- scarring effects well into their 40s. What we are seeing at the moment is limited action to create apprenticeships. I am seeing young people in a revolving door of apprenticeships, taking on work experience, internships and apprenticeships over and over again. These do not lead to a real, paid, lasting job. Government Members heavily criticised the future jobs fund for being expensive, but I say to Ministers: please recognise that investing money in young people up front is repaid in droves. It is the right thing to do morally; it is the right thing to do economically.
	Many young people are on zero-hours contracts and I want to say something about the increasing casualisation of the work force, something that the workers in the Hovis factory in my constituency are rightly standing up against at the moment. People on zero-hours contracts
	tend to earn lower wages as a whole, and we have seen compelling evidence of widespread exploitation. I would be grateful if the Minister paid some attention to what I am saying, because this is something that affects people across the country, including, perhaps, in his constituency.

Andrew Bridgen: The hon. Lady speaks passionately about youth unemployment. If the Opposition have all the answers on youth unemployment, why did it rise by 40% under the previous Labour Government?

Lisa Nandy: Again, I would really like to send the hon. Gentleman on a history course. If he looks more closely at what happened under the previous Government, he will see that not only youth unemployment fall, but that at the one point in the mid-2000s when it rose it was because there were more young people compared with jobs. It was due to an increase in young people, not a shortage of jobs. The previous Government immediately took action to reduce youth unemployment, something I hope Ministers revisit and learn from in view of the problems we have now.
	I was talking about the widespread exploitation of people on zero-hours contracts. Whole sectors are now dominated by this. I represent women in my constituency who work in the home care sector, and I have heard appalling stories about the way they are treated. One woman was forced to take eight hours of shifts on no notice whatever. She has two young children and had to take them with her and lock them in her car while she tended to older people. I would be really grateful if the Minister stopped laughing for a moment, because this is very serious. When the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), responded recently to a debate in Westminster Hall packed with Labour MPs raising similar concerns, she did not say very much. However, it cannot be beyond our wit to bring in some kind of statutory code or regulation and ensure that it is enforced. I take the Minister’s point that some people like zero-hours contracts, but, given the widespread exploitation of people in that situation, surely it is time to take action.

Lilian Greenwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lisa Nandy: I am sorry but I will not, because I have only a short time left.
	Women, in particular, are affected by zero-hours contracts. We should take this seriously, because women are increasingly important to low-income households. In 1968, men in low-income households contributed 71% of the household income. By 2008, that was just 40%. The contribution made by women had doubled, yet female unemployment remained stubbornly high. We lag eight percentage points behind OECD leaders such as Iceland, Norway and Sweden in the re-employment of women with children. We should celebrate a fall in unemployment whenever it occurs, but we need to look seriously at what is happening to women; otherwise we will fail to solve the problems for families.
	We should also take seriously the fact that for many women part-time work is not a choice. One third of women with children were found recently to be in
	part-time work through lack of choice. We should first address the high cost of child care, which is rising by 5% a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out, that far outstrips affordability, especially for those on the minimum wage.
	Finally, we should take immediate action to tackle low pay. We have seen a long-term trend of falling pay and rising profits. There is no pressure from the Government to take action against multinationals such as Tesco, which made huge profits last year. It employs many women in my constituency on below the living wage. I say to Ministers that low pay is not a ladder for most people. They are trapped in low pay, which is why we need action on the living wage. It is not just important for individuals and their families; it is important for the local economy. If people are not spending, small and medium-sized enterprises fold and the cycle continues. I ask Ministers this: where is the pressure? Condemn those multinationals, implement a living wage and refuse to do business with companies that will not take action. It is time for us to take concrete action. Our families and our young people simply cannot afford for us not to do so.

Gavin Barwell: Beneath the narrow partisanship and complete lack of penitence over Labour’s record in government lies a profound point in this motion about the challenge for public policy in our time: how do we improve the standard of living for people in low-paid work? This Government have done an awful lot to end the obscenity of people out of work being better off than people in work, but there is much more to do to ensure that being in a low-paid job actually pays for people. We on this side of the House should not allow our anger at the hypocrisy of those on the Opposition Benches to cloud the fact that there is a real problem.

Ian Mearns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Barwell: I would like to make a bit of progress first.
	I want to talk about two things: how the problem arose, and what we can do to solve it. I would argue that there are four causes of the problem. The first was the deficit built up under the last Government, which was partly the fault of the collapse in the banking system, but partly the fault of Labour for having a deficit before the recession started. Let me quote from something written by the Institute for Fiscal Studies before the last election:
	“With government borrowing at its highest level since the Second World War…the key domestic policy issue for the next parliament will be how best to implement a combination of spending cuts and tax raising measures to return it, over the medium-term, to appropriate levels.
	This will be painful…families”
	will be made
	“directly worse off”.
	That was the view of the IFS, no matter who was going to win the last election. That is the logical consequence
	of having the deficit, and voters understand that. I spent the summer knocking on more than 5,000 doors in Woodside and South Norwood in my constituency. The electorate understand that tough decisions have to be made.
	The second cause is the international economic climate, which has led to lower than expected growth across the developed world. The third and fourth causes have nothing to do with Government: they are rising commodity prices and long-term changes in the labour market, which have led to a lower value being placed on low-skilled work. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to a quotation from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions identifying the problem back in 2004.

Ben Gummer: My hon. Friend said that the third reason, rising commodity prices, had nothing to do with Government. I would respectfully demur. One of the biggest pressures on families is energy prices, and the reason we have high energy prices in this country is because no one built anything in this country in the 13 years that Labour was in power.

Gavin Barwell: There are certainly some commodity prices that Government can influence—my hon. Friend is quite right to pick me up on that—but there are others, such as the prices of basic foodstuffs, that are beyond national domestic control.
	How do we solve the problem? I would like to suggest five possible solutions. The first is economic growth. It is not a solution on its own, because part of the deficit is structural.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Barwell: I will give way once more, to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), because I promised I would.
	The OECD forecast shows that our economy is projected to grow in quarter 3 by 0.9%, which is more than any other country in the G7 other than Canada, and in quarter 4 by 0.8%, which is the best projected rate in the G7. Unemployment in my constituency of Croydon Central is 6% lower today than it was when Labour left office, while youth unemployment—which the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who spoke before me, rightly spoke so passionately about—is nearly a quarter lower today than when Labour was in office.

Ian Mearns: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are significant variations around the country? I am afraid to say that youth unemployment in the north-east of England is now 25%. We have been accused of being hypocritical a number of times this afternoon, but although he spoke eloquently about the scourge of low pay in his opening remarks, he forgets entirely that his party opposed the implementation of the minimum wage when it was introduced by the last Labour Government.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Gentleman makes two excellent points. The regional variations in economic performance are a profound issue for public policy, and the Conservative party was wrong to oppose the national minimum wage, which is one of the things that the last Labour Government deserve credit for.
	The second solution I would suggest involves interest rates. At the moment we have record low interest rates. If we followed the economic policies of the shadow Chancellor, the cost of borrowing would go up, which would make an already difficult problem far worse and hit anyone with a mortgage extremely hard. The third thing we can do is look at public policy changes that Government can make to try to help people in low-paid work. One of the things about this Government that I am proudest of is the increase in the personal allowance. That sounds rather technical, but what it means is how much you can earn—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but how much anybody can earn—before the Government start taking money away in tax. When we came to power, the figure was £6,475; from next April, it will be £10,000.

Gemma Doyle: rose—

Gavin Barwell: I am afraid I cannot give way again.
	That change has taken 2.7 million low-paid people out of income tax altogether and cut the income tax bill for someone on the minimum wage by a half. The shadow Chief Secretary talked about priorities. It is true that this Government have made a change to the tax rates for some of the wealthiest in our country, but if we want to talk about priorities, we have to say that the Treasury has spent 50 times more cutting tax rates for people in ordinary low-paid work than it has paid in reducing the top rate. That shows this Government’s priorities.
	As other hon. Members have said, we have ensured that petrol duty is 13p a litre cheaper today than it would have been if we had followed Labour’s policies. We have cancelled the beer duty escalator. We have helped local councils across the country to keep council tax bills down. We have a scheme that we will introduce for tax-free child care, which will help with the cost of child care for people with children under the age of 12. We are ensuring that energy customers are placed on the lowest tariff. We have introduced the triple lock for the state pension, to ensure that we never again have the national scandal of our pensioners being given a derisory pension increase each year. We are also introducing the Help to Buy scheme, to try to help my constituents who want to own a home of their own and take that vital first step to get on the housing ladder, so there is much that this Government are doing.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Gavin Barwell: I cannot give way again.
	There is also the crucial issue of wages. I have talked about the national minimum wage already, and there were some interesting reports in the media recently about the Government perhaps looking at what they can do on the minimum wage. As a Conservative, I would worry very much about a uniform increase, which might price some people out of the labour market. However, there is a case for asking whether larger companies or those that are making healthy profits should not be paying their staff more, because at the moment we are subsidising some employers to pay low wages, through the tax credit system that the previous Government introduced. I very much hope that the
	Government will look at how we tackle the issue of quality of life for people on low pay from both ends, by raising the personal allowance, so that we do not tax them so much, but also seeing whether we can ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the hard work they do.
	One Opposition Member who talked about this issue implied that it was just Labour councils that are passionate about a living wage. My local authority, Conservative-controlled Croydon council, pays all its staff the London living wage, while the Mayor of London has guaranteed that that will apply to all staff working for the Greater London authority as well.

Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Barwell: I am afraid I cannot give way again.
	That is a big issue, particularly in London and the south-east, where pay costs are highest.
	I also want to raise with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who gave an incredibly thoughtful speech, the issue of public sector pay. We have been quite right to restrict increases in public sector pay, because high increases would simply have meant more joblessness, but there is a limit to how long that policy can be continued. I hope that as wages increase in the wider economy, those who work in the public sector are not left out of that process.
	Finally, if we want a high-wage economy, the long-term solution is to ensure that we have people with high skills who can command high wages in our globalised labour market. That is why I am so proud to work as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education, whose work, building on what the former Prime Minister and Lord Adonis achieved, is transforming standards of education in our country. Ultimately, if young people in Croydon Central want to command high wages in our economy, they need the qualifications and skills that will enable them to secure those jobs. We should not pretend that there is not a problem, but the Government are doing much to deal with it, and I hope they will do more still.

Alison McGovern: I respect the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whom I am following in this debate, but with respect, I understand that Croydon put its council tax up because of a lack of Government funds. Although we would all like to see living-wage councils, we need to recognise the extreme pressure that local authorities are under because of this Government’s ferocious cuts to them.
	On skills and education, which I shall come to later, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on the need for a history lesson. It is absolutely right that we focus on the needs of young people. However, Government Members in this debate somehow seem to have forgotten that a previous Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer had to rescue modern apprenticeships from the history books in order to give this country a proper industrial skills policy again. I am glad that Government Members support that and that it has been kept going, such that young people will still have the chance to get an apprenticeship in this country, but let
	us not pretend that we did not suffer all those years until 2003, when that proper industrial skills policy was put back.
	On the broader question of living standards, if the Government think that they are out of the woods with this recovery or that all our problems are solved, then good luck to them. I ask the Minister just to speak to a few people on low and middle incomes in Merseyside, as he has already kindly agreed to do the next time he is there. I really do not think that those people are feeling better off at all. They do not feel better off, and they are not better off. In fact, I think that the Chancellor might quietly agree with me on that. Before the summer, I asked him at Treasury questions:
	“Does the Chancellor believe that since he came to office the average British family is better off after inflation, yes or no?”
	I was hoping for a straightforward answer from him. Instead, I got this:
	“I think that they have better economic prospects than they did under the previous Government.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 333.]

Emily Thornberry: Jam tomorrow.

Alison McGovern: Quite right! Jam tomorrow, but never jam today. People in the Wirral will certainly not put up with that, and I doubt that anyone in the rest of the country will either.
	I have spent much of the summer talking to people about zero-hours contracts. They are a growing issue for my constituents and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and I have conducted a survey in order to listen to people with experience of such contracts. Given the stories that we heard from people who simply did not know what their wage packet was going to contain at the end of each week or month, I simply cannot accept the argument that any job is better than no job. That is like saying that it is better to work for £1 an hour than to have no job at all. I cannot accept that argument. I cannot accept an economy that is devoid of standards.
	This is not a proper recovery. Unless it reaches those on low and middle incomes, we shall not see the kind of economic recovery that we need. Instead, we shall see the kind of hysteresis and waste of talent that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has described. Zero-hours contracts affect young people; they are a blight on their prospects. Those people need a chance to build their skills so that they have the potential to have a good career. Will the Minister answer these questions? What will he do if the number of hours worked per person in the economy does not increase? What will he do if people are still underemployed in a year’s time? How will he address their need to increase their pay packet so that they can afford the prices in the shops?
	On inflation, I repeat that I still cannot quite believe the Prime Minister’s response at Prime Minister’s questions today to the question about school uniforms. I remember only too well the situation in my own family. There were three of us, and September was an expensive time. My mum used to worry that we had grown. If the Prime Minister has not experienced that, or heard about it from families in his own constituency, let me tell him
	that it was extremely stressful. Unfortunately, the previous Governor of the Bank of England was forced to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer citing the VAT increase as part of the cause of the inflation that we have experienced. So, although I accept the points that have been made about the global situation, the Government’s policy has not exactly helped to bring down prices.

Barbara Keeley: I thank my hon. Friend for re-raising the point about school uniforms. The point that seemed to escape the Prime Minister, and possibly also the Secretary of State for Education, who was sitting next to him at Prime Minister’s questions, is that the problem is due entirely to the Government’s policy of creating new free schools and academies that insist on a branded uniform. That has raised the cost of the uniforms to £300. It is not possible to buy those uniforms from a supermarket. The increased cost is directly due to the policy of creating lots of new free schools and academies. The Government have to take responsibility for that.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend is quite right.

Gavin Barwell: rose—

Ben Gummer: rose—

Alison McGovern: As I am following the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon Central, I will give way to him.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Lady is typically gracious. May I just remind her—and, through her, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—that the policy of establishing academies was introduced by the last Labour Government?

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned free schools and the proliferation of such new schools opening. I believe that we should all, on a cross-party basis, call on schools to do everything they can to keep the cost of uniforms as low as possible. That message must be sent out loud and clear.

Gavin Barwell: indicated assent.

Alison McGovern: If the hon. Gentleman will support that suggestion, his support will be welcome.
	The issue of living standards is not going to go away. It will affect us for many years to come. If we simply say that increasing GDP figures and nominal growth in the economy are all that matter, regardless of the distribution or sustainability of that growth, we shall be storing up problems for the future. We know this from the history of our country, and we should not be oblivious to the needs of those on low and middle incomes. Let us not forget that those people are not some small special-interest group; they are the vast majority of people. So when Labour Members talk about the importance of living standards for them, we are not engaging in some strange obsession with a small number of people. This is about the needs of everyone in the country, and about making sure that they are well served by the Government’s economic policy.

Emily Thornberry: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who have both made thoughtful contributions to the debate. It is a great shame that more Members are not present on the Government Benches. We seem to be running out of speakers rather early, which speaks volumes.
	The Conservative Government seem quite happy to crow at great length about how well the economy is doing, but they seem to take very little interest in the question of living standards. They crow about how well the economy is doing, we hear a great deal of briefing on the subject and we endure a great deal at Prime Minister’s questions, but the truth is that no one believes them. That is because people’s lives do not reflect a growth in the economy. For ordinary people, life is getting harder, not better. People do not believe that next year is going to be better than this year; they believe that it is going to be harder. And I am afraid that, at the moment, it looks as though they are right.
	That is partly because services are being cut. It is partly because people are having to queue to see their GP. It is also harder for older people to get social care or to see a consultant. After-school clubs are being cut, youth groups are being closed and there are restricted hours for day centres. Life is also more difficult for people because they no longer have access to the kinds of services that they have been taking for granted, which are being cut by the Government. Primarily, however, life is harder because people feel that their wages and benefits are not keeping up with inflation. The reason for that is that they are not: they are not keeping up by a long chalk.
	Those people who are lucky enough to be in work are often not working sufficient hours. They might be working for their poverty, but they are not earning enough to be able to rely on their own wages. They also have to rely on benefits and tax credits. Many of those on low wages who work full time also have to rely on benefits and tax credits, especially in areas such as the one I represent. In central London, it is simply not possible to live on the average wage without relying on benefits to help to pay the rent and to help with child care costs.
	Much has been said about what a great idea universal credit is, and about how we should have one level of benefits for everyone across the country, including those in central London. No allowance is made for the fact that rents and child care costs are so much higher in areas such as this. People on average wages in central London rely on benefits too. That is the truth, and if universal credit is introduced in the way the Government propose, I do not know what is going to happen to those people.

Charlie Elphicke: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is making a sincere and heartfelt speech, but the difficulty is that every prescription from Labour involves more spending and more welfare. The effect of that would be to drive up interest rates, which would harm the recovery and harm the job creation that could lead to increased wages and a strengthened recovery. The polls show that that is not a prescription that this country finds credible.

Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that divides us completely. Those of us on the Labour Benches believe in investing money in housing, for example. I have just mentioned the huge rents that people have to pay, and how difficult it is for people on average wages to live in London without relying on housing benefit. If we could build more houses in central London and the south-east, house prices would not be as high as they are now and people would not need to rely on benefits in the way that they do. That makes sense. If we build homes, we also provide jobs and infrastructure, lower our dependence on housing benefit and lower housing prices generally. We will offer hope and opportunity for the next generation. I have no idea why the Government will not do this, but they are refusing to invest properly. We will need a new Government before that happens.

Ben Gummer: There is absolutely no difference between us on whether there is pressure on living standards, as it is completely obvious to all Members that there is. Where there is a difference relates to prescriptions. The hon. Lady rightly talks about housing demand in the south-east, but she knows perfectly well that, even if we start building tens of thousands of houses in the south-east this year, it will take many years before it feeds into reductions in rent. What prescriptions—costed prescriptions —could the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team bring forward now to ease living standards?

Emily Thornberry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes this issue very seriously, will have seen the policy development happening in the Labour party and the seriousness with which we are putting this issue as a front-and- centre policy for us as a future Government. We know the difference that that will make to the economy. When it comes to investing money, this is what we should invest it in. I fully support our Front-Bench team on this and I believe it is the right thing for this Government to do. In the end it would save us a great deal.
	I do not believe that we can just build tens of thousands of homes. We need to get out there and start building seriously. We need to start building now and, frankly, I think it is disgraceful that, given the recession that we are having to endure, this Government have, I believe, the worst house building record of any Government since the 1920s. That is outrageous. This was not the original purpose of my speech but since the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) has touched this particular nerve—I apologise for giving it to him with both barrels—I simply cannot see the sense in the Government’s current policy of putting their fingers in their ears and saying “La, la, la, la, la, la, la.” and thinking that this problem will somehow go away. It will not go away. The only way to solve our housing crisis is to build more housing.
	Returning to my original brief, those in part-time work do not earn enough money to be able to afford a good standard of living and that applies even to some of those in full-time work, so some have to rely on benefits. We have seen that 60% of new jobs since the last election are in the low-paid sectors of our economy—retail and residential. Between 1997 and 2010, 25% of the new jobs established were in those sectors. Why is this difference occurring? A Resolution Foundation study has shown that 4.8 million Britons—20% of all
	employees—earn below the living wage, which is a leap from 3.4 million—14%—at the height of the recession. Why is that happening? Why have those on average wages lost an average of £1,500 a year?
	It is happening because our economy is unfair and unbalanced. What are the Government going to do about it? How are they going to address the problem? They cannot simply keep sailing on and hope that things are going to be all right. Things are not going to be all right. The evidence shows that there will continue to be people who just manage to grab on to work by their fingertips, but not by enough for them to be able to sustain themselves and their families. Even those in full-time work, particularly in areas such as London and the south-east, cannot afford to live without being supported by benefits. In the end, this is unsustainable; we must raise wages in real terms.
	I hold a women’s listening panel every year. This year, it is on 13 September at St Mary’s hall in Upper street, and all my female constituents are welcome. I carried out a survey last year and 89% of the constituents who replied said that their income had gone down in the previous year; 32% said their rent had gone up and 70% said it was difficult for them to make ends meet because of their food and fuel bills. They particularly mentioned the expense of child care in Islington. The problem is not just the obvious and manifest cost of rent. The cost of child care—£164 a week—is so expensive as to make it impossible for someone on the minimum wage of £212 a week to put a child into full-time child care. These things do not make sense.
	There are many single parents in my constituency who want to get into work, but who simply cannot make ends meet when it comes to getting to work, placing their children in child care, being able to pay the rent and being able to pay their way. This is the trap that so many people find themselves in, and there has to be an answer to it. Even getting someone to pick the children up after school and look after them for a few hours until the person finishes work can cost £92. How can that be all right for someone on the minimum wage of £212 a week? It does not make sense; it does not add up.
	Those who live on benefits and do not work at all—those on jobseeker’s allowance—have, of course, seen a rise in their income of 70p a week. I do not know whether the Exchequer Secretary has ever spoken to anyone who lives on jobseeker’s allowance and gone through with them how they spend their £70.70 a week? If so, he would know how difficult it is for them to make ends meet at the moment. It seems to me that we have heard a great deal of political knockabout today when what we should be doing is listening to real people out there and how they live their real lives. I invite the Minister and his boss to come to my women’s listening panel. I will not tell the women that they are Tories, so they will be safe, and we will finesse the fact that they are the only men in the room. They should listen to what is said, listen to these women’s stories of how they are trying to make ends meet in these difficult times. Year in, year out, it gets worse and more difficult for them. The Minister may talk about the economy getting better, but he should listen to what is going on in real life.

Lilian Greenwood: Twelve months ago, I spoke at the launch of the Clifton food bank in my constituency. I was proud to support Wendy White and everyone else in her team of volunteers who had given their time and energy to help support others in the local community. Led by the Clifton churches in partnership with the Trussell Trust, the Clifton food bank is providing vital help to people who simply cannot make ends meet. Many of those referred to the food bank have sought help from the Clifton advice group. Claire Ashton, who has been involved in the group for 13 years and who chairs the management committee, recently said that it had seen a marked increase in the number of people struggling to put food on the table, and that this was a direct impact of Government policies, particularly benefit cuts.
	When I spoke at the launch, I was proud of the response from a community that is not wealthy, but where people look out for each other. My view then and now is that it is a disgrace that even though we are the seventh richest country in the world, we face an epidemic of hidden hunger, particularly among children. But as families struggle to make ends meet while the Government stand by, the work of food banks is vital. It is the Government’s failure to act, their standing by in the face of a cost-of-living crisis, that prompts me to speak in today’s debate.
	Today, the Prime Minister demonstrated how out of touch he is, completely refusing to recognise his failure to turn things around for hard-working families in cities such as Nottingham. Contrary to what he says, life is getting harder, not easier, for ordinary families. Prices are rising faster in the UK than in any other major economy; average wages are down almost £1,500 a year since this Prime Minister came to office; and we have the slowest recovery for nearly 100 years and almost 1 million young people are out of work—with devastating consequences, as a number of my hon. Friend have already described.
	The Prime Minister claimed that people were getting back into work but in my constituency—I recognise that it is not the case everywhere in the UK—unemployment is higher now than it was in May 2010. The unemployment rate in Nottingham South is now 6.5%, compared with a national average of 4.5%. Those forced to rely on out-of-work benefits are condemned to falling living standards because of this Government’s 1% cap on benefit rises, which falls so far behind the current rate of inflation.
	Life is hard not just for those who are unable to find a job; it is hard for those in work, too. In Nottingham, the average wage for a full-time worker is about £22,000, but that compares with a national average of £26,500. Of course, many part-time workers, especially women, earn far less than that.
	Employees face increased uncertainty about their incomes. Many are under-employed, trapped on zero-hours contracts or reliant on a multiplicity of mini-jobs, and they are at far greater risk of losing their jobs following the Government’s decision to reduce employment protection and workplace rights. I ask Members to compare that decision to reduce job security and make work more uncertain with the decision of our local Labour councils, such as Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire
	county council, to provide a living wage. I pay tribute to Nottingham Citizens for its campaign to secure that decision, and its practical action to support ordinary working people and our local economy.
	It is no surprise that when people in Nottingham South have had the opportunity to choose who they want to represent them over the last couple of years, they have chosen Labour. They recognise that the present Government are out of touch and make the wrong choices. This Government have chosen to raise VAT while cutting taxes for millionaires; they have allowed energy companies to make huge profits while failing to help people with energy bills that have risen by £300 a year, condemning many thousands to fuel poverty; they have failed to take action to curb bank bonuses while allowing payday lenders to charge exorbitant rates of interest; and they have done nothing to tackle rogue landlords and rip-off letting agents, although many more households are being forced into the private rented sector because they cannot get on to the housing ladder. When we compare average house prices in Nottingham with average salaries, it is easy to see why that is happening.
	Any recovery in the United Kingdom’s economic performance is to be welcomed, but ordinary people know that recent improvements are not benefiting low and middle-income families. The 16 food banks in my city are a shocking reminder of how out of touch the Government are, and show clearly why Nottingham needs a Labour Government with a programme that will boost living standards.

Geraint Davies: Again, we heard a ragbag of rubbish from the Financial Secretary, who gave us the Laurel and Hardy story about another fine mess from Labour. In fact, between 1997 and 2008 the economy grew by some 40%. It was only when the financial tsunami came that we saw difficulties, but with the fiscal stimulus from Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), bang, we were back to shallow growth, albeit with a deficit two thirds of which was caused by the bankers and a third of which was caused by spending beyond earnings to pump-prime the economy. That was the right thing to do at the time.

Ben Gummer: Let us try to get the facts right. First, the Government were running a structural deficit between 2002 and 2010. Secondly, the private sector in Britain did not grow after 2003. All growth was down to credit and public sector increases. The hon. Gentleman’s contention that somehow the economy grew by 40% is therefore incorrect.

Geraint Davies: That is certainly not the case. GDP was up by 40%, and the history of the last three years is one of zero GDP growth. I admit that we have seen growth of 0.6% in the last quarter. However, according to the TUC, 80% of the new jobs that have been created—it has been claimed that there are 1.3 million, but that figure is contested by the director of the Office for National Statistics—are low-wage jobs. What we actually have is a low-wage, low-investment, falling-productivity economy, with living standards falling through the floor and prices rising at the same time. It is a complete disaster.
	Government Members such as the hon. Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and other economic illiterates have said that interest rates might rise under Labour, but anyone who reads the financial press will know that the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has given undertakings that they will not rise until unemployment has fallen by 750,000, from 7.8% to 7%. So that argument too is a complete load of rubbish.

Ben Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, he is confusing market rates with bank rates. Market rates will rise, because the cost of borrowing for the British Government on the international markets will rise under a Labour Government. That was shown at the time of the general election. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that bank rates will be fixed, but the two are not connected to the extent that he claims.

Geraint Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The point that I was making was that the Bank of England rate would be secure in the way that I described. The other rates depend on confidence. Whatever happened to the triple-A rating? Government Members said “Oh dear, it will be all over. We will lose the triple-A rating if Labour gets in.” Well, we have lost it, and why has that happened? It has happened because objective observers have seen that productivity is falling, not rising, that the jobs that are being created are low-grade jobs, and that the distribution of investment is skewed towards the next general election, with 80% of all infrastructure investment being made in London and the south-east—which needs the least investment—and most of the cuts being made in the north and in Wales: in places such as my constituency in Swansea, where 40% of people work in the public sector. Yes, we want investment in the private sector, but the way to boost local economies is not to cut people’s wages, jobs and services, which is the current prescription.
	What is happening is not sustainable, and given the current economic capacity—the manufacturing and construction sectors are 10% smaller than they were in 2008—there is clearly some way to go before unemployment reaches the level at which interest rates will fall, so that point was a complete red herring.
	In fact, mortgage rates are low now—as low as 1.5% for safe bets. The Government, alongside the Bank of England, should be thinking about providing more funding for firms so they have more cash flow and can invest in higher-value jobs and products. Household lending from the banks is about the same as it was—it is 0.3% less than in 2008—but lending to business is 32% down. It is massively down in all the major sectors. In January lending to business was 3% lower than a year ago. By June that figure had doubled; it was down 7%. So the Chancellor is a man looking to the future who is walking backwards. The reality is that Britain is 159th in terms of the ratio of investment to GDP, and is lagging around the bottom in terms of research and development.
	One might ask why the banks are lending all this money for houses. Part of the reason is because we have a bubble, artificially generated by the Chancellor to get his votes in the south, through what The Economists calls the “daft policy” of subsidising new deposits on mortgages, which will inflate house prices and lead to sub-prime debt downstream.
	The banks also now require four times more capital cover to lend to a business than to provide a mortgage. Turning to the question of the complexity of all this, I have run my own businesses and been involved in others, and have therefore looked at business plans. The banks need to look at the business plans too, as opposed to just having somebody in a call centre saying, “All right, fill in the box. You’re all right mate, you can have a mortgage.” The Government should be telling the banks that the funding for lending scheme should be specifically directed at firms to cover new and existing loans. In other words, they should be doing something positive to get the level of business investment up and create real jobs and get wages moving in the right direction. That is what is needed.
	The current situation is that house prices are rising and household debt is growing, partly because the cost of housing is going up both in terms of rents and house prices. That is only sustainable if we have real wage growth. [Interruption.] The Exchequer Secretary is mumbling to his mates, but what are the policies for sustainable wage growth? How are we going to move away from this low-investment, low-wages, low-productivity trajectory that we have got? There is no point in blustering and denying it all; we have got this problem across Britain. We have also got inequality between north and south, and obviously between Wales and the south.
	I am talking about SME support, but in contrast we have the corporate world, where Vodafone has just done the biggest share transaction of this century. It has taken £54 billion in cash, and it is not paying a penny in tax. What is the Exchequer Secretary doing about that? Nothing. Why does he not do something about procurement, too? We could use our muscle to buy from SMEs locally—companies that pay tax rather than avoid tax—so they can provide jobs locally. This is a complete disgrace. We should be doing something positively with the powers at our disposal, to create higher wages, higher business investment, more security and more focus on emerging markets.
	That is not happening, however. This is a complete farce. It is a mess and I hope the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) will join the Labour party like his predecessor, Andrew Pelling, did, and stand up for what is right and what makes sense.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and I will try to irritate Government Members less. Given his track record, it will, I think, be impossible to irritate them any more.
	I am particularly pleased today to welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chief Secretary. It is great to see her back. Only the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) could describe maternity leave as a long enjoyable break. That takes being out of touch to a new level.
	I am pleased that so many Opposition colleagues have focused on the impact of falling living standards and access to employment on women in particular. I am sure that all Members will have received from Asda today the Asda Mumdex, and I am sure that my hon.
	Friend, as a first-time mum herself, will be very disappointed to see that first-time mums reported to that survey that they are twice as worried about financial pressures than about their own health.
	Such stories do not talk in statistics, percentages and GDP, but they show the real impact of the economic crisis on people’s lives and on what that is doing to families. People often say that a happy mother is a happy family. A happy father is pretty important in that picture, as is a same-sex partner or, as will soon be the case, a same-sex wife or same-sex husband. We need to examine the human cost of this crisis and what it is doing to a generation of children growing up.
	I am sorry that we have not heard much today from Government Members about investing to reduce child poverty. What are they going to do about that? They are happy defending their own record and attacking ours, but I suspect that our constituents want to hear, in the 37th month in which their income has dropped in real terms, what the Government are going to do about it. All sorts of barriers are involved here. We all know that employment is a means to improve the well-being—the income—of a household, but that will not always be so.
	The other figure in today’s Asda Mumdex that stands out is that 74% of mothers say that they do not think that it would be financially worth their while going back to work because of the cost of child care. The Government really need to address that if they are serious about helping mothers back to work. I am looking forward to going to my local Asda store in Dunbar on Friday to sit down with a panel of mothers and listen. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has also recommended to the Minister that he does the same. The Government need to sit down with mothers, as do we all, to hear the stories of how this economic situation is having an impact on their lives.
	I was pleased that at today’s Prime Minister’s questions my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) raised the issue of school uniforms, which has arisen again. It resonates with many of us because of our memories of knowing that pressure. Last year, I was horrified to hear the story of people from the high-street payday lender, the Cash Store, standing outside a primary school in my constituency giving balloons to children. Fliers had been put up around the area beside the school saying, “Need a school uniform. Come to us.” That is shocking. This week, we have heard about Wonga’s profits for the quarter. We talk about “legal loan sharks”, and that is the right term for them, because they are predators. They sniff poverty in the way that a shark sniffs out blood, and then they home in and profit from that poverty.
	I am not saying that I want to make this debate completely about payday lending and regulation—of course there is a need for people who have no assets to have access to credit—but the Government must try to get a grip on this area. The debt charity StepChange has seen a dramatic increase in the number of my constituents seeking help with debt because of problems with payday lenders—the figure went up from 10% to 28%. So I appeal to the Government to do more; they are so concerned about debt—rightly—but why are they not more concerned about unsustainable debts that so many
	of our constituents are taking on?
	[Interruption.]
	I thought someone wanted to intervene, but it was just another Government Member leaving the Chamber.

Emily Thornberry: Would my hon. Friend like to join me in noting that only four Government Members are in the Chamber—a Whip, a Front Bencher and two on the second row—whereas a large number of Opposition Members wish to speak?

Fiona O'Donnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark. I am afraid that I have just been very unkind and tweeted that not only were there only three Opposition Members—I think it was—in the Chamber, but the Opposition Whip had fallen asleep. [Interruption.] I should have said that the person sitting in the place usually occupied by the Government Whip has fallen asleep—I say that for the benefit of Hansard.
	Fuel bills are a huge problem for families, having risen by £300. The Prime Minister promised this country that he would do something about excessive rises in energy prices, and he has not made good on that promise. The Government parties ask what we did about the energy companies, and I am proud to share the fact that in my sock drawer at home I have a pledge card from the 1997 general election. One thing that Labour did was to use its windfall tax on the privatised utilities to invest in creating jobs. That is the difference between Government Members and Labour Members.

Ben Gummer: I am very happy to intervene on the hon. Lady, and I hope that she will have another minute in which to continue her thoughtful speech. On energy prices—I know the next debate will address this—the previous Government may have come to office in 1997 wishing to control energy prices, but in the end by building so few power stations, they have left us having to invest more than any other western European nation—£200 million—to renew our infrastructure. In the end, that money will have to come from somewhere. Part of it will come from those who pay for fuel. The hon. Lady, or at least the Labour Government, must bear some of the responsibility for that situation.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am willing to take responsibility when that is due, but it seems as though for this Government the past three years have not happened. In my constituency, a coal-fired power station has closed down. That is good for the environment, but Scottish Power and the Spanish firm, Iberdrola, cannot invest the necessary money to convert that into a gas cylinder plant because the Government are not giving clarity on the charges for connecting to the grid. We should all share the responsibility. Unfortunately, in opposition, there is less that we can do about it, whereas the hon. Gentleman has the privilege of being in government. I wish the Government would use the little time that they have left in office to get on and make a difference to the lives of my constituents.
	Yesterday’s debate makes me worry about who will stand up for those people in my constituency who are falling foul of payday lenders and who cannot afford to put food on the table. The whole debate about food banks is thoroughly depressing, and although I welcome the fact that they are there in so many communities, including my own—I am a trustee of my local food
	bank—I worry that we are propping up a system that is dismantling the welfare state in this country. We need to pause and think about that further. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Steve Reed: I want to take part in this debate because the Government are clobbering people in Croydon North and everywhere else by squeezing their standards of living. The Prime Minister likes to say that he has helped with the cost of living where he can, but the truth is that he has not. I want to demonstrate that by showing just how much Labour councils, including those that are part of the Co-operative Councils Network, are doing compared with the Government’s relative inaction.
	Wages have fallen in real terms in London, including in Croydon North, by 7.5% since the Government were elected. The average employee in my constituency therefore takes home £2,200 less a year since 2010. That is a catastrophic fall in income for many households at a time when the cost of living is going up, not down, thanks to the Government’s actions. One of the Government’s very first actions was to hike up VAT to 20%, despite repeated criticisms of that policy by one of the coalition partners when they were trying to persuade people to vote for them. It is notable and disappointing that no member of that party has chosen to participate in this afternoon’s debate.
	One of the heaviest costs for families or households with young children is the cost of child care. Child care costs have risen by 19% since the Government were first elected, and 25 hours of child care in Croydon can cost up to £175—nearly £800 a month. How many families can afford that, especially given the downward pressure on wages? In part, that is a result of the Government’s decision to cut the early intervention grant by 40% in real terms, so limiting the capacity of councils to contribute towards child care provision. The cost of child care in Britain is the highest in Europe, and instead of demonising parents who cannot work as skivers, how about the Government considering the costs that they have allowed to pile up to such an extent that parents cannot afford the child care that would allow them to go back to work?
	More locally, I regret that Croydon’s Conservative-led council has closed six designated child care centres since 2010—a reduction of almost a quarter in what used to be provided. That sudden loss of provision has forced up costs elsewhere, once again costing families dear and pricing parents out.
	Although the Tories in national and local government have made the problem worse, Labour in local government is acting to solve it. I commend Edinburgh city council, ably led by its Labour leader Councillor Andrew Burns, for using co-operative values to explore setting up a city-wide child care co-operative, aiming to reduce costs and increase accessibility for parents with young children. The council is working with parent-led, out-of-school care providers to set up after-school clubs and mutual child care services, helping them to achieve co-operative status and setting up a service level agreement to bring stability and sustainability to the sector. That is Labour offering real help to hard-pressed families, based on parent power, while the Tories continue to do very little.
	People commuting from Croydon to work in central London have experienced enormous fare increases under the Conservatives. Since London has had a Conservative Mayor, the cost of a single bus journey has increased by 56% and a zone one to six travel card costs £440 more a year. This year, it costs £313 more to travel from Croydon to central London than it did in 2010, when the Government were elected. That increase is way above the rate of inflation and even more above the rate of wage inflation.
	Compare that with Labour-run Oldham council. Its leader, Councillor Jim McMahon, realised that high travel costs were a real barrier to accessing employment and leisure opportunities across the rest of Greater Manchester. The council worked with First Greater Manchester, the local bus operator, and negotiated a 28% reduction on weekly and daily bus fares for every Oldham resident. It worked up the business case to show how lower fares would increase journeys and overall profitability for the bus operator. The scheme is saving residents up to £260 a year on the cost of public transport and may now be extended right across Greater Manchester.
	Let us also consider the soaring cost of energy. As many colleagues have said this afternoon, household bills have soared by £300 a year. The Government have failed to get a grip of the problem and to take action to curb what amounts to profiteering. Contrast that with Lambeth’s Labour-led council, which I am very familiar with. It worked with the community to set up a microgeneration co-operative called Brixton Solar Energy. It placed solar panels on the roof of a housing estate in Brixton, sold the surplus energy back to the national grid and used the profits to reduce the energy bills of neighbourhood residents. I am delighted to say that that success is now being extended to other estates in the area.
	I have conducted my own research locally into the fees charged by letting agents in Croydon North. I have found that some charge up to £500 for handling deposits and some charge up to £500 more in additional administration charges. Newham’s Labour-run council is setting up a register of approved landlords and agents, so that its tenants know who is playing fair and who is not. What a shame that Tory councils such as the one in the area I represent are refusing to do the same.

Andy Sawford: Any increase in employment is to be welcomed, but the real story of the labour market is a living standards crisis, with falling real wages and millions working harder for less. I know that from the experiences in my constituency. We have heard complacency from the Government today. They say that they have fixed the economy, but for ordinary families we know that things are getting harder, not easier. Ministers just sound out of touch when they ignore the fact that the number of people who are working part time because they cannot find a full-time job is at record level.
	Real wages are falling: wages increased by 0.6% on the year to June, while the retail prices index increased by 3.3%, over five times the pace of wage growth. OBR forecasts show that, after inflation, wages are set to be
	£1,520 lower in 2015 than they were in 2010. That means that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Prime Minister today, ordinary working people will have lost, on average, £6,660 on this Government’s watch. That is a shameful record.
	Underemployment is a massive and growing problem for millions of families already feeling the pinch from rising prices and falling wages. More than one in 10 people are now unable to work the hours they would like because this Government strangled the recovery for three years. Today we have heard complacent, boastful comments from the Government, delighted that there is, at last, a slight upturn in the economy. Let us not forget, though, that for three years, having inherited a growing economy, they flattened that growth and people across this country suffered for three years.
	The Government and the Prime Minister are out of touch in not understanding that very many people not only work part-time but often work on zero-hours contracts. They find themselves working through agencies and are often exploited. People in my constituency have told me about their experience of these zero-hours contracts—of turning up for work only to be told that there is no work that day, yet they might have arranged child care or had to pay considerable transport costs to get to work, or working for half a shift and then being told that they are no longer needed that day. That is no way for businesses to treat their employees, but it is also no way for a Government to behave when they turn a blind eye to the growth of that practice in our economy.
	People have told me about not being able to get a mortgage, car finance or a bank overdraft, or even a rental agreement, because they cannot clearly demonstrate that they will have money coming in over the weeks and months ahead.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Sawford: No. I know that two of my colleagues want to speak, so I am going to push on.
	Seventy per cent. of zero-hours contracts are for permanent jobs. How can it be right that someone in a permanent job is not given a permanent and proper contract of employment? More than 80% of people on zero-hours contracts are not looking for another job. They want to remain in employment, but they want it to be fair and secure. Resolution Foundation research shows that those employed on zero-hours contracts receive lower gross weekly pay and that workplaces utilising zero-hours contracts have a higher proportion of staff on low pay. In my constituency zero-hours contracts, combined with the very high number of people working through agencies, have created a two-tier work force, with permanent employees often being paid better and having security of employment while many other workers are being paid very low wages and exploited from week to week.
	There is an argument that zero-hours contracts offer flexibility. Of course, casual employment has always been part of the labour market, including casual employment where there are no guaranteed hours. I have worked under those conditions and other people do so too. For example, Corby borough council employs lifeguards at the local swimming pool on such casual contracts; of course, it is seasonal work and there are
	changes in demand over the course of the year. When I talk about zero-hours exploitation, I do not mean all casual employment in the economy. The local Tories in Corby have got themselves into an extraordinary position, saying that my local council should end all casual employment. That is completely bizarre. It has been suggested that it is hypocritical of me, as a Co-op Member, to highlight this issue and campaign against zero-hours exploitation because across the country the 2% of workers the Co-op employs in its funeral business are mainly retained firefighters or semi-retired people. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
	Most people understand that some casual employment works for some people, but the key is that it should be reciprocal and fair. That is why I have introduced a Bill that aims to tackle zero-hours exploitation. I want to see what legal changes we can make to help people, particularly by ending things such as exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts.
	I am delighted that the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), has really taken a lead on this issue. Just a few weeks ago, he held a summit bringing together employers and people who are concerned about it. I welcome the support of many organisations in civil society—trade unions and organisations such as Citizens Advice—in trying to tackle it. However, it is not achieved only through legislation; this Government should act, and the Business Secretary’s review should have more resources put behind it. We should try, through public procurement, to encourage Government and local government to stop using zero-hours contracts as far as possible.

Iain McKenzie: It is an honour to contribute to this very important debate. We should take time to pause and reflect on what is really happening to the living standards of people up and down this country.
	Since 2010 wages have fallen in real terms in just about every region of the UK. In Scotland wages are down some 6.4%, which is having an impact on living standards. Families are more than £800 worse off this year because of cuts to tax credits and benefits. Time has shown that the Government are increasingly incapable of making any positive changes to improve living standards for hard-pressed families.
	Prices continue to rise faster than wages—that is, if people are fortunate enough to be employed and in receipt of a wage. We also continue to witness banks giving out bonuses while families across the UK are struggling. Is it therefore surprising that most people feel that nothing is changing for them? The Government are locked into a failing economic plan whereby, bizarrely, they ask millions of families and pensioners to pay more while millionaires are given a tax cut. My constituents find that to be an unacceptable economic approach in the face of their plummeting living standards.
	Families, pensioners and businesses in my constituency continue to struggle. People tell me of their shock during their weekly trip to the supermarket on finding that they are putting less food in their basket but more money in the till. I witness more and more families having to go to greater lengths to keep within their budget, desperately shopping around to track down bargains for the most basic food items.
	Those who cannot make it from week to week have been forced to turn to food banks. Frighteningly, the number of people going to food banks continues to rise. Inverclyde now has two large food banks and starter packs for families trying to set up a home. Starter packs offer help to families and individuals with the most basic home furnishings, such as kitchen utensils. It is no use having food if there is nothing to cook it with or eat it off. Is it not a sign of living standards getting worse when not only is food an issue but people have to be given utensils to eat it?
	Families are losing their tax credits. Families in Scotland are losing on average more than £500 a year, which they could have spent in the local economy on essentials such as food and clothing. That is hurting my local economy and many shops are closing down; in the last week alone, three have closed down in Greenock. My chamber of commerce has been pleading for an increased local spend to try to help save those local shops. The truth is that people are not spending as much as they used to, locally or elsewhere.
	Scotland will lose £43 million a year from cuts to tax credits, which is an enormous amount to take out of the Scottish economy. The evidence is that people up and down this country are facing an unprecedented reduction in their living standards. The Government’s programme does little to help those most in need. It has been pain all the way, hurting people, families, pensioners and even the disabled. They are all finding it difficult to make ends meet.
	Since the last election, average energy bills, as we have heard, have increased by about £300 per year, meaning that people are under severe pressure even to afford to heat their own home. If the Government do not take action, what is the alternative? Debt? I have spoken to two credit unions in my constituency and they warn that families face extreme difficulty in managing their finances, and they have seen an increase in the number of people coming to them just to budget from week to week. Unfortunately, many people do not turn to the credit unions but seek alternative loans, which only push them deeper into debt and trouble.
	The Government need to help families immediately by taking measures that address the crisis of the falling standard of living and that stop the rip-off prices of fuel and power. This country needs a Government who are in touch with families during these hard times. The Government clearly need to make different choices and set different priorities. Families up and down the country are feeling the pain. Only today I have heard that unemployment in my constituency has increased and that the rate of non-working families is 25%. Clearly, we need employment and we need jobs.
	If the Government do not change their priorities and stop handing tax cuts to millionaires, living standards will continue to fall for working people, young people, families, pensioners and even the disabled. In fact, living standards will fall for everyone apart from the Government’s favoured millionaires.

Gemma Doyle: This is probably the most relevant debate we could have when it comes to the issues that affect our constituents day in, day out. There is a living standards crisis in the UK today and it has been caused directly by the actions
	of this Government. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and his Government are entirely out of touch with families up and down the country who are struggling to make their pay packets last until the end of the month.
	Before the last general election, we were promised that a Conservative Government would improve people’s living standards and that people would not only see their incomes rise but their quality of life improve. That has not happened. In fact, the opposite is true. There are only two possible conclusions to be drawn. The first is that the Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—have decided that they are happy to pursue policies that drive down living standards, and the second is that their policies are failing entirely.
	The Minister should be in no doubt that the crisis is real. Every week, people in my constituency come to me to talk about rising energy bills, rail fares and fuel bills; cuts to tax credits and benefits; and the problems caused by low pay, underemployment and unemployment. I do not know what is in his postbag or in-tray, but that is what is in mine. He does not have to take my word for it, as the statistics speak for themselves. Since 2010, real wages in Scotland have fallen by an average of 6.4% or £1,420 a year, which is a huge sum. Statistics for the whole of the UK from the Office for National Statistics show that under this Prime Minister real wages have fallen for 35 consecutive months—longer than under any other Prime Minister since records began. What a shameful record that is.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gemma Doyle: I will not at the moment.
	In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, between 2010 and 2012 average wages rose by just 0.6%, while inflation hit 8%. With the cost of essentials such as food and energy continuing to go up and up, one does not need a calculator to work out that the figures just do not add up. In recent months, the community of West Dunbartonshire has come together to launch a food share project. People are so appalled by the need for that in our area that they do not want to call it a food bank. They do not want it to be just a food bank, so as well as collecting donations and redistributing supplies, the group has wider aims, such as campaigning on poverty and poverty pay. I am delighted to say that Labour-led West Dunbartonshire council is a living wage employer. I very much hope that other local employers will follow suit. I intend to have discussions with local businesses about how they can work towards that.
	Earlier in the summer, figures published by Citizens Advice showed that one in five families feel that they cannot afford to feed their children. Frankly, that should shame us all. Its advisers are seeing people who have nowhere else to turn. The chief executive of Citizens Advice Scotland, Margaret Lynch, has stated that it is no longer unusual for advisers to see people in their offices who do not have enough money to pay for food, never mind other bills such as rent and council tax.
	I have had men and women bring their bills to my surgery. Some have lost their jobs and many have had their hours cut. They are desperate for more hours or
	for a job that will pay them enough to make ends meet. They have trimmed their outgoings to the bare essentials. They put their bills on the table in my office and ask, “What should I do?” It is difficult, but I give them the best advice I can. I tell them about the food bank, although I have to think twice about that, because it embarrasses people so much. It is a dreadful situation for people to be in, because they feel a huge responsibility towards their families, but it is not they who are failing, it is the Government who are failing them.
	At the same time as that is going on in all our constituencies, the richest people in this country have had a tax cut. Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have decided that they want to give millionaires a tax cut, which beggars belief.

Andrew Griffiths: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I will not, because I want to ensure that we have enough time for the Front Benchers to speak.
	We have a living standards crisis in this country. The Government’s own figures show that things will continue to be extremely difficult for the foreseeable future. People are really struggling, and the Government have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

Christopher Leslie: First, I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends for holding the Government to account on the cost of living crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) made a powerful speech about the cases that Opposition Members see in our constituencies, with hard-pressed families struggling to make ends meet. She talked about not just the crisis that they face but the difficulty of even getting advice and support, including from the citizens advice bureau, as local authorities are scaling back their grants to voluntary organisations.
	The crisis is exceptionally significant, so it is sad that there has been scant interest in the debate among Conservative Members and zero interest among Liberal Democrat Members, who have been completely absent from the debate for the past three hours. What better way could there be for hon. Members to see the complacency and lack of interest among Government Members in one of the most pressing and significant issues for our constituents?
	We have had not just inaction from the Government for the past three years but policies that are actively making the cost of living worse for most people. Month after month, year after year, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have presided over prices rising faster than wages. No other Prime Minister since records began has come close to the disaster in family living standards that the current Prime Minister and Chancellor have overseen. For 37 of the Prime Minister’s 38 months in office, real wages have shrunk in value. The pound in the pocket, the pound that someone has earned, does not go as far as it used to—it is diminished in value and worth less than it was before. No wonder people are working longer hours just to stand still.
	Three years of suspended animation have created a treadmill economy in which millions are struggling just to stay where they are. My hon. Friends the Members
	for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) made that point exceptionally coherently. To listen to Government Members, however—those who took the trouble to take part this afternoon, possibly because reshuffle season is coming up—one would think that the way things are going is their idea of economic success.
	Average hourly wages have fallen by 5.5% since the middle of 2010, but millionaires have never had it so good. Living standards for most people are falling, not rising, and as the Financial Times has pointed out, real wages have dropped back to their 2004 level.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Gentleman said that millionaires had never had it so good. Will he remind us what the marginal rate of tax on millionaires was under the Labour Government, and how that compares with today?

Christopher Leslie: For a moment during the hon. Gentleman’s speech earlier, I thought he was a little embarrassed about the cut in the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, which happened in April. I was on the verge of intervening on him to ask whether he regretted voting to give priority to such a cut at a time when living standards are under the most stress. Does he regret doing that? Does he think it was the wrong thing to do?

Gavin Barwell: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time if he wants to say sorry to the House.

Gavin Barwell: The whole House will have noted that the hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the question, but I will set a good example and answer his question. I do not think very wealthy people need a tax cut in terms of living standards, but I think that when attracting wealthy people to locate to this country, high marginal rates of tax are a bad idea, and therefore I voted for change.

Christopher Leslie: I said it was reshuffle season. We nearly got an apology; the hon. Gentleman does not think rich people need that tax cut, but he voted to give it to them anyway because he is that sort of generous guy. I say to him, and to other Members, that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which the Government created, predicts that by the next general election in 2015, annual incomes will be £1,520 lower than they were in 2010 in real terms. That is lower wages. Just think about that statistic for a moment. Five years of Conservative and Liberal Democrat administration will have left a legacy for working people in which they are actually worse off, and significantly so.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will give the hon. Gentleman another little statistic. If we add up the five years of the falling wages predicted by the OBR, a typical working person will have lost an amazing £6,660. Imagine the difference that could make to ordinary working people. It is the equivalent of a year and a half’s grocery bill for the average family; they could even have bought a small car for that amount. Those diminishing wages are in addition to the tax and benefit changes since 2010, which are costing families an average of £891 this year.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I would like to make a little progress in the time I have left. That is what people have lost thanks to the Prime Minister. That is the scale of the cost of living crisis, and those are the costs of the Government’s failed economic policies.

Russell Brown: Those sums of money would make a great difference to households, but it is not only that. It is about what those sums when multiplied would do in the economy. We are starving the economy of much-needed money to make it vibrant.

Christopher Leslie: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and he understands that having that level of activity in the economy would have helped us get a better growth rate than we have had under the flatlining record of Government Members. Think of the different course the Government could have chosen. They could have tackled soaring energy bills with tougher regulation to pass on wholesale price cuts to ordinary customers, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) suggested. They could tackle rip-off rail fares for commuters with an enforceable cap on train fare rises, they could protect tax credits for working people by reversing the millionaires tax cut, and they could cut income taxes with a new 10p starting rate to be paid for by a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million. However, they will not go that extra mile. Why? Because they do not understand the pressures that household budgets are under. After all, how could they? Government Members think that everything in the garden is rosy. They are either ignorant of the pressures on most households, or in their complacency they are ignoring the issue.
	After three wasted years of a flatling economy, it is about time we had some economic growth. This growth, however, comes despite the Government’s economic policies, not because of them, and as everybody knows, growth is still falling short of what we ought to be seeing by now. Deficit reduction has stalled because the Government are borrowing more to pay for the costs of economic failure.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Christopher Leslie: No, I will not give way but I will ask the hon. Gentleman what sort of economic recovery this is. So far, it has all the hallmarks of a recovery for the few, not the many. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister has abandoned the fiction that we are “all in this together.” The lucky minority of the already wealthy are doing very well thank you very much, but that is not much solace for everyone else who is working harder just to stand still. The Government have failed spectacularly to put in place conditions for a balanced recovery, and instead have fuelled a lopsided escalation in the cost of living, without a simultaneous focus on capacity or affordability, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said.
	The Chancellor needs to act now to guard against escalating prices, inflation and interest rates, but he is not building broad-based growth in every region. He is not focusing on long-term, sustainable investment;
	he is putting short-term, debt-fuelled, business-as-usual economics first. His housing policy is all demand and no supply.
	Business investment is thwarted by banks that are still not serving the real economy. How nice it is for bankers who can stave off their bonuses until the new tax year kicks in and pocket the Chancellor’s generous tax cut. No wonder there was a record-breaking bonus bonanza—bonuses soared by billions at the exact moment the Chancellor cut that 50p rate.
	It is not looking like a recovery for ordinary people. It is a recovery for the rich, an unbalanced and narrow recovery, and a recovery for millionaires but not working millions. Times are tough, and, for most people, life is getting harder, with the cost of child care, the daily commute, the family shop, school uniform costs, the rent and the mortgage. People are taking on more hours if they can or, worse, joining the rise of the zero-hours economy. No wonder people are driven increasingly to payday lenders and extortionate credit. As my hon. Friends will have seen in the news yesterday, Wonga is lending as much to consumers as some of our major high street banks, such as Nationwide. Does that not say it all? It is not a recovery for those struggling to make ends meet; it is the Wonga recovery, benefiting those at the top at the expense of the majority.
	Those are the consequences that flow from three years of economic stagnation. The cost-of-living crisis is felt in middle and lower-income households across the country. Enough is enough. We need action now to help ordinary taxpayers, commuters and householders to fight back against those rising prices. Ensuring that wages rise faster than prices should be a central objective for the Government. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are out of touch. Working people up and down the country are out of pocket as a result. We cannot go on with this cost-of-living crisis year after year. Every day it becomes clearer, especially to ordinary working people in our constituencies, that we cannot afford this Government.

David Gauke: I add my congratulations to those of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), on the birth of her daughter earlier this year. I welcome her back.
	I should also add a word of admiration not only for the hon. Lady, but for the shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I admire them because, in their speeches today in a debate on the economy, they managed to ignore two points. First, they did not touch on any of the economic data that have emerged over the summer. We heard nothing about gross domestic product numbers, purchasing managers index surveys, employment numbers, CBI and British Chambers of Commerce forecasts or the OECD’s assessment yesterday. I appreciate that the Labour party has had a summer to forget—it has clearly forgotten.
	Secondly, the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman managed to ignore the economic argument we have heard from them for the past three years that the
	Government are going too far and too fast. They argued that there was no way we would get growth while cutting the deficit, and that only by borrowing more would we have growth. They also had a five-point plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has pointed out, the flagship policy in the plan was a cut in VAT, which would be necessary to get the economy growing again, but that has disappeared from Labour’s platform. We have heard lengthy speeches from Labour Members on economic policy, but they have not talked about their economic policy.

Ian Mearns: The Minister refers to economic data from the summer months. We saw an increase in retail expenditure in the summer months, but is it any coincidence that, at a time when people have limited disposable income, household savings have decreased?

David Gauke: What is striking about the data we have seen is the encouraging, broad-based signs. The manufacturing numbers are very encouraging. Let us not say that the situation is about consumer spending only. There are encouraging signs in the economy, which was not reflected in the remarks of Labour Members.

Geraint Davies: The Minister will have heard my speech, so I will not recite it, but will he accept that there is a problem with the amount of lending to business by banks? Can he give any undertaking that the Bank of England will put pressure on banks to redirect the funds they have been given under the funding for lending scheme towards business rather than to household mortgages that are now out of the woods?

David Gauke: The fact that we have credibility in our fiscal policy means that the Governor of the Bank of England has been able to say what he has said about the greater certainty for interest rates, which is helpful for businesses. If we throw away that fiscal credibility, we will make life more difficult for businesses wanting to get credit.
	We have talked about what the motion contains. It says that we should get more people into work: we agree with that. Over the year, employment has increased by 301,000, and unemployment has fallen by 49,000. In July, the claimant count fell, for the ninth consecutive month, to 1.44 million, the lowest level since February 2009. This is the result of a Government who have created the right tax and regulatory environment for businesses to flourish. The proposals from the Opposition would put all of that at risk.
	We hear about bringing forward capital investment. We also recognise the need for infrastructure investment to spur the jobs and growth of the future, and that is why in June the Chief Secretary unveiled the biggest public housing programme for more than 20 years; the largest programme of rail investment since Victorian times; the greatest investment in our roads since the 1970s; fast online access for the whole country; and the unlocking of massive investment in cleaner energy to power our economy forward. We have increased expertise in Whitehall and we are working hard to deliver those projects as soon as possible.
	The cost of living is an important issue, and we recognise that times are tough for many people. But let us look at the difference between the parties. Whereas we have reduced income tax for 25 million people—we have increased the personal allowance—the previous Government doubled the rate of income tax on low-paid workers. This Government have ensured that we have credibility so that we have been able to keep mortgage rates low: the Opposition would lose our credibility. Council tax doubled under the previous Government: it has been frozen under us.
	The previous Government raised fuel duty 12 times while in office and had plans to raise it six more times subsequently—the equivalent of 13p per litre—and we have frozen fuel duty. When we came to office, the UK had almost the highest child care costs in the world, and we will help families with child care. Energy bills soared under Labour. Between 1997 and 2010, the average domestic gas bill more than doubled. Electricity bills went up by more than 50% and Labour remains committed to an expensive 2030 decarbonisation target that will only add to energy bills, whereas this Government are forcing energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff. When it comes to beer duty, Labour planned to raise the tax: we not only froze it, we cut it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), in an excellent speech, asked how we ensure that we have the sustainable growth that we need. We need sustainable public finances—an argument that we have made consistently and that has been consistently opposed by the Opposition. We need a highly skilled work force, and that is why 500,000 apprenticeships have been undertaken under this Government. It is why we are undertaking ambitious educational reform. We need welfare reform, with a system that makes sure that work is rewarded—not something that we inherited from Labour. We need a competitive tax system that encourages investment in the United Kingdom, not one that drives it away. We need to deal with the regulatory burdens that prevent growth—we have undertaken planning reform, which will help to increase housing supply.
	What do we get from the Opposition? We get a Labour party that presided over a squeeze in living standards from 2003; a Labour party that must accept some responsibility for the deepest recession in a century; a Labour party that doubled the rate of income tax on low-paid workers; a Labour party that planned for increase after increase in fuel duty; a Labour party that remains signed up to decarbonisation targets that would increase energy prices; a Labour party that has consistently set out an economic policy that would consist of more borrowing, an approach that would lead to higher mortgage rates and ultimately higher taxes; and a Labour party that has opposed our council tax freeze. For Opposition Members to lecture us on living standards is extraordinary. As President Obama might have said, it is the audacity of the hopeless.
	If we want to help hard-working people—I think we all do—it is vital that we stick to the task. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are too many private conversations. I am struggling to hear the Minister.

David Gauke: If we want to help hard-working people—I think we all genuinely do—it is vital that we stick to the task. [Interruption.] I know that we do. I am not sure the Opposition do, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt. We need to create a favourable environment for job creation. We need to maintain economic credibility by continuing to deal with the deficit, which enables us to keep mortgage rates lower. We need to reduce the tax burden on low-paid workers and we need to reform our welfare system to ensure that work pays. That, not borrowing and spending more—not more debt—is the answer, and that is the approach the Government will take.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 225, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.

Energy Prices and Profits

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the importance of the energy industry to the security and prosperity of the UK economy; notes that the average household energy bill has increased by over £300 since the 2010 general election; further notes that the big six energy companies have had a £3.3 billion uplift in profits over the same period; welcomes the recent report on Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty from the Energy and Climate Change Committee (Fifth Report, HC 108) which found that Ofgem is failing consumers; regrets that the Government has halved support for people in fuel poverty, and that as of 20 August 2013 only 132 households had signed up for a Green Deal plan; further regrets the Prime Minister’s broken promise to legislate so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers; and calls on the Government to bring forward amendments to the Energy Bill to make the energy market more competitive and transparent by requiring energy companies to pool the power they generate and to make it available to any retailer, to create a tough new energy watchdog with the power to force energy companies to pass on price cuts when wholesale costs fall, and to put all over-75 year olds on the cheapest tariff.
	Earlier this afternoon, we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about the full scale of the cost-of-living crisis unfolding in Britain. For 37 of the 38 months in which this Government have been in power, real wages have fallen. At the same time that people have seen their incomes squeezed, the cost of living has also increased sharply. In the last three years alone, the average household energy bill has increased by over £300. It is no wonder that Which? research has shown that 79% of people now worry about how to pay their energy bills. With nearly four in 10 people saying they are likely to have to cut back on their energy spending in the coming months, and with warnings of more price rises coming later this year, I make no apologies for returning to a topic that we have debated a number of times in the last couple of years.
	As we know, energy companies claim that there is a whole raft of reasons why energy bills are going up—wholesale costs, network charges and social and environmental obligations. With all those extra costs, one might think that profit margins would have come down, but quite the opposite. It is now clear that, regardless of those costs, these companies have seen a substantial increase in their profits. We know that because since 2009, energy companies have been required to publish information on their financial performance, including their profits. The information shows that in 2009, Britain’s big six energy companies made just over £2.2 billion in profit. In 2012, by contrast, they made more than £3.7 billion in profit—an increase of nearly 70%. Overall, over the last three years, Britain’s big six energy companies have seen a huge profits uplift of more than £3.3 billion. If anything, this is likely to be an underestimate because it excludes their profits on trading and from gas storage.

Peter Lilley: I noticed that, among the factors affecting energy bills, the right hon. Lady did not mention the cost of moving from lower-priced fossil fuels to very expensive renewables. That is the only item that is directly under the control of this House. Was it not somewhat disingenuous not to mention it?

Caroline Flint: Actually, I mentioned “social and environmental obligations” in my opening statement, and part of those obligations mean moving to cleaner energy in the future. I think I have the support of Ministers in saying that if we stay stuck in the past in relation to fossil fuels, we will create an even bigger bill for the future. We need to move to cleaner, renewable energy and other low-carbon energy in order to achieve both security and fairer prices in the long term.

Edward Davey: In the interests of consensus, does the right hon. Lady accept that it is essential and urgent for Britain to increase investment in renewables, low carbon and energy infrastructure generally, and does she accept that we need to invest about £110 billion over the next 10 years?

Caroline Flint: Yes, I do accept that, and in view of the Secretary of State’s comments, let me be absolutely clear about one thing. The opening words of the motion before us today rightly recognise
	“the importance of the energy industry to the security and prosperity”
	of the British economy. The companies that keep the hospitals warm, factories working and the lights on in 25 million homes are doing a pretty fundamental job for the British economy. They employ hundreds of thousands of people and create skilled apprenticeships right across the country. Over the next 10 years, we need these companies to invest in the UK—in new power stations, pipes and wires.
	The idea, however, that the significant uplift in profits is all somehow to do with investment simply does not stack up. For one thing, if we look carefully at the profits and investment trends of the big six energy companies, as Bloomberg did last year, we see a very odd pattern emerge. The companies with the biggest profit margins have the lowest investment profiles, while the companies with the smallest margins are ploughing the most back in.
	Moreover, at a time when the industry overall is enjoying unprecedented profits, we are not seeing anything like the investment that we need. Analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that investment in clean energy has fallen by more than half since the last general election, and that under this Government just one new gas-fired power station, in Carrington in Manchester, is scheduled to open before the next election. Every other gas-fired power station that is coming on stream was commissioned, received planning permission and began to be constructed under the last Labour Government. In any case, the need for investment cannot mean allowing the energy market to fail consumers.

John Redwood: Does the right hon. Lady not understand that if she backs the most expensive and least rewarding forms of energy investment, to the tune of £110 billion—which is what she wishes to do—profits of less than £4 billion a year will not pay for all that?

Caroline Flint: The choice that we face is between moving to the energy market that is best suited to the future and continuing to incur the additional costs of the past. The Energy and Climate Change Committee
	has produced information about the cost of decarbonising our power sector, but has also drawn attention to the cost of not doing anything. I believe that the cost of staying stuck in the past would far exceed the cost of investing the amount that we need to invest in renewable and low-carbon energy for the future.

Edward Davey: Does the right hon. Lady accept that investors will need to make profits on their investments? The Bloomberg report aside, does she agree that investors in energy companies can make profits?

Caroline Flint: Of course I agree that those companies should make profits. I do not want to become involved in a back-and-forth question session because I know that other Members wish to speak in the debate, but the Secretary of State has not answered my question. Is he not worried about the fact that some of the companies with the largest profit margins are investing the smallest amounts, while those with the smallest profit margins seem to be investing more? The need for investment cannot mean allowing the energy market to fail consumers. Today I shall explain not just how the Government are going wrong, but how the position could be improved.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that none of the Members who have intervened so far have mentioned consumers? People such as my constituents have seen fuel poverty—extreme fuel poverty—double over the last 10 years. They have suffered attacks on their living standards and increases in gas and electricity prices, while the six big companies that the Government appear to be defending have made profits of £3.3 billion.

Caroline Flint: In fact, that £3.3 billion is over and above those companies’ profits. It is not just their profit base; it is the uplift on what I would describe as, in itself, a pretty healthy profit.

Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: No. I am going to make some progress. I shall say more about consumers later, and there will be plenty of time for interventions then. Let me begin, however, by saying something about energy efficiency.
	There is agreement on the fact that the best way in which to protect people from rising energy bills is to make their homes better insulated and more energy-efficient. The Government’s flagship programme is the green deal. It replaced the Warm Front programme, which helped more than 2 million families to insulate their homes under the last Labour Government.
	Members may recall that the last Secretary of State said that the green deal would help to insulate 3.5 million homes. Clearly a great deal has happened since that statement, and it would be understandable if Members took those words with a pinch of salt. However, the Prime Minister told the House that the scheme would be “bigger and better” than any schemes that had preceded it. It would be groundbreaking, revolutionary, and the envy of countries all over the world. When it was launched earlier this year, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)
	told Radio 4 that he would be having sleepless nights if fewer than 10,000 people had signed up for it by the end of the year.
	Eight months in, how many people have actually signed up for a green deal package? Has the number hit 8,000, or 4,000? Can the Minister look forward to a good night’s sleep before the end of the year? I am afraid not, because so far just 132 people have signed up. Therefore, almost five out of six hon. Members in this House do not have a single constituent who has signed up for the green deal. The saddest thing is that this was all so predictable. For the last three years my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and I have warned that interest rates of 8% or even 9% would put people off, that hidden charges would put people off, that penalty payments would put people off, but this Government are not good at listening.
	The Secretary of State will no doubt claim that it is still early days, and I really wish that were the case. On the latest count over 58,000 people have had assessments. That shows that the public are interested in making their homes more energy-efficient, but the problem is that once they have had their assessment, 99% of people say they do not think it is a good deal and are not signing up.

Gregory Barker: There is absolutely no factual basis for that assertion. The latest DECC polling shows that over 70% of people who have had a green deal assessment have said they either have work in progress or intend to or are likely to have work.

Caroline Flint: The facts speak for themselves. There were 58,000 assessments, but only 132 people have signed up. I am sure Government Members will do their best to defend the green deal this afternoon, but they might want to ask themselves why their constituents do not want it if it is such a fantastic scheme.
	Alongside the green deal is the energy company obligation, which is a successor scheme to the obligations on the energy companies that we put in place. Again, in principle it has our support. However, when support for people in fuel poverty has been cut by half, the help that is available should be targeted where it is most needed, yet under ECO 60% of the funding could go to households who can already afford to pay, not to people in fuel poverty. When times are tough and money is in short supply, that is simply indefensible.

Russell Brown: I spoke in the last debate. Some 41% of households in my constituency are in fuel poverty. What does my right hon. Friend have to say about what I believe is the sharp practice by some of the energy companies, who have customers on direct debit payments and come along and want to increase monthly direct payments by 15%, 20% or 25%, with no real rhyme or reason—when there is no justification for that as their customers are not using that increased amount?

Caroline Flint: Although some of the companies have reformed how they treat their customers, I am afraid that I receive information every day from members of the public including my own constituents—and also colleagues in this House who tell me about their experiences
	and those of their constituents—about what can only be described as sharp practices. Why should a customer who is paying a fair rate for their energy have to pay an uprated rate just to allow that money to sit in the coffers of the energy companies so they can benefit from any interest on it? That is just not fair and there is still a huge job of work to be done.

John Robertson: Some 56% of people are saying they have cut back on their use of electricity and gas yet their bills are going up. They ask, “What is the point of the green deal, when it does not matter how much I save because prices are going up anyway?” No wonder nobody wants to know about their green deal.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right, and that lack of confidence and trust in the market and how it operates is at the heart of our motion.
	I want to tackle this issue head-on by turning to the question of the retail energy market. It is nearly a year ago now that the Prime Minister promised to force the energy companies, by law, to put all their customers on the cheapest tariff. Let me remind the House of exactly what the Prime Minister said on 17 October last year:
	“we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 316.]
	He reaffirmed his proposal at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, but the details show that it will not in fact apply to all customers; it will apply only to people on closed or dead tariffs, which is a tiny fraction of consumers as a whole.
	Given the crucial difference between what the Prime Minister promised and what the proposals entail, it is reasonable to ask exactly how many people will benefit. Since then, I have asked one urgent question, six oral questions in the House and six written parliamentary questions to get to the bottom of this, but every time the Government have refused to answer.
	This is meant to be their core offer to consumers, yet the Government cannot even tell me how many people will be moved to a better deal, when that will happen or how much they will expect to save. So I ask the Secretary of State again today: how many people will the energy companies be forced to move to the cheapest deal? Why is his Department so far refusing to answer my freedom of information request on this issue? Why has so much time and so many resources been wasted trying to shore up a policy announcement made off the cuff?
	The sad thing is that there is agreement across the House and, to its credit, within industry that the proliferation of tariffs in the past few years has hindered, rather than helped, consumer choice and competition. Instead of focusing on that, the Department has wasted a year trying to dig the Prime Minister out of a policy hole entirely of his own making, creating unnecessary confusion for the public.

Stewart Jackson: Before the right hon. Lady gets too far along the road of critiquing the dysfunctional market, perhaps we ought to consider that the Labour Government inherited a dynamic and efficient market, geared to competition for
	consumers with 14 companies, and handed on to this Government an oligopoly of six companies, which she now criticises.

Caroline Flint: It is fascinating how figures can be used. The briefing that Energy UK gave Members on both sides of the House says that 17 companies are operating in the market. The problem is market share; the big six control 98% of the market. I do not call that competition, and we will not get it until we get a fairer sharing out of the market—that will make a real difference.

Barry Gardiner: In response to the previous intervention, would my right hon. Friend simply care to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the previous Labour Government had to reform the market not once, but twice, through NETA and BETTA—the new electricity trading arrangements and the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements? They did so to ensure that, in what had been a dysfunctional market, something better and more competitive was created. That created the big six, which now, through the change in circumstances, have reached a different stage in their genesis and need reform as well. The idea that the Labour Government inherited a well-functioning market is nonsense, and Government Members know it.

Caroline Flint: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Just for the record, energy bills fell under my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. When he became Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change the average bill was £1,215, and when he left it was £1,105. I am happy with that drop of more than £100, but since then there has been an increase of more than £300 in the past few years.
	Alongside simpler tariffs, which we would all agree with, protections should be put in place for people less able or less inclined to switch. That is why our motion proposes to require the energy companies to put all those over the age of 75 on to the cheapest tariff. We know that the over-75s are the most likely to live in homes with poor energy efficiency and the most vulnerable to the cold weather, but the least likely to switch supplier, so they often pay more than they need to. That is sometimes simply because they do not have enough confidence to access the internet, where the information on the cheapest deals is available, or to operate an online account. I have discussed our proposal with suppliers, and they indicate that there is no reason why it cannot be done, so I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give a more positive response than he has in the past.

Caroline Lucas: Yesterday, Lord Stern dismissed claims that fracking could bring down the price of gas in the UK as “baseless economics”. Given the long list of experts explaining why shale gas will not help people who are struggling with high energy bills and will actually trash our climate commitments, will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to rule out fracking in the UK under any future Labour Government?

Caroline Flint: I have been clear that our approach to fracking and what it could offer must be evidence-led. In the past few years, I have been disappointed by the
	fact that, for all sorts of reasons, the Government have chosen to up the ante on what gas from such exploration can provide. We do not really know the exact cost-benefits of fracking for gas. We do not know how much is there and whether those benefits will be realised when we get it out of the ground. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Lady by not ruling it out, but our approach must be evidence-based and pragmatic. I certainly do not believe that we should be offering tax breaks, given everything that is going on in this country, for something that might not happen for 10 years, if it happens at all.
	The Government have harmed the reasonable debate that we should be having about fracking by trying to polarise the use of the gas against that of renewables. That has been incredibly unfortunate as regards having a practical, reasonable and evidence-led debate. That is what we will lead on in trying to debate the issue, which is important for our country.
	As I have said, we can simplify the tariffs. We can take our proposal to put all those who are over 75 on the cheapest tariff. But before we even get to tariffs, we must ensure that the prices that make up bills are set fairly and openly in a properly competitive environment. That is crucial because wholesale costs are the single biggest component of domestic energy bills and make up more than half the prices consumers pay.
	If we do not have a competitive wholesale market putting a downward pressure on prices, people might be on the cheapest tariff but might still not be getting a fair deal. The Government seem to say that they agree that the market is not as transparent or competitive as it should be, but what are they doing about it? Not very much.

Michael Weir: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I just want to make a little progress.
	The Energy Bill takes broadly based back-stop powers to improve liquidity, but the Government cannot even say in what circumstances or in what way they would use those powers. I am sure that the Secretary of State will pray in aid Ofgem’s work on liquidity. In our previous exchanges, he has defended the regulator against my criticisms, but I hope that he has read the Select Committee’s report, “Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty”, which was published over the summer. Its conclusion is stark. The very first page of the report states:
	“Ofgem is failing consumers by not taking all possible steps to improve transparency and openness in the energy market.”
	I am afraid Ofgem’s proposals on wholesale market liquidity do not go anywhere near addressing the two main problems with the market.
	The first problem is that the market is dominated by six companies that both generate power and retail it to consumers with a market share of 98%. As Which? pointed out in its report over the summer, the obvious problem with the structure is that it provides little incentive for companies to keep wholesale prices efficient if the effect of doing so is to reduce the overall profitability of the company. Why would the supply arm of an energy company try to drive down profits on the generation arm if the outcome was to reduce the amount of money the company as a whole was making? Although the
	companies are right to say, as they frequently do, that their retail profits are only 5%, which is pretty healthy, their profit margins on generation are much more substantial. Which? suggests in its report that last year they were about 19%.

Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I have given way quite a lot and I want to make a bit of progress. I will see whether I have time later to take another intervention from the Secretary of State.
	I have set out the first problem. The second problem is that if energy problems can source most or all of the power that they need for their customers from their power stations, there is much less need to trade in the open market. According to one estimate from the London Energy Brokers Association, average daily market traded volumes were just 6% of total generation. For those reasons, we have proposed the pool to which the motion refers. A pool would be a single mechanism bringing all generators and suppliers together to buy and sell all their power.
	To put it simply, in a pool—or an open exchange, or whatever else we might call it—all generators will be required to sell all the power that they generate on to an open market, and all suppliers will have to buy it from there, too. That would do two very important things: it would put a break between generation and supply; and it would result in much greater volumes being traded openly. Indeed, that is one reason why the markets in other countries where there is a more exchange-based trading system, such as Nord Pool, are more liquid, more transparent and have more market participants. I believe that such a market would be more attractive to invest in, particularly for independent generators or companies wishing to enter the supply market.

Andrew Gwynne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent report by the respected think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, which shows that the efficiency savings resulting from increased competition in the energy market could alone bring bills down by around £70?

Caroline Flint: That is absolutely right. I do not believe that the present situation encourages or incentivises efficiency within those companies. Importantly, it does not provide an open and transparent basis on which to judge the true cost of energy, which I think is vital if we are to move the debate on energy in this country forward.

Edward Davey: Today we have learnt that the right hon. Lady believes that we need investment in the energy sector and that investors will need profits. Given what she has just said, can she tell the House what level of profit she thinks is excessive and when she thinks profits become unfair to the consumer?

Caroline Flint: I think that the difficult thing here is for the country to understand why the Secretary of State has set his face against opening up the market and making it more transparent. This is not about companies not making a profit; it is about creating more competition. Every time we discuss the price of energy, we will have various voices, including the Government’s, defending
	how the companies operate. I want to create a more open and transparent market, so that we can all judge what is a fair price and, alongside that, what are fair profits. It is not fair if people cannot get to the bottom of how energy is bought and sold. It cannot be right for the market to be rigged in such a way that the vast majority of energy is sold within a company and then sold on to us. Other countries do it differently, and I think that we can, too.

John Penrose: Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that even if her proposals were to introduce extra transparency and potentially yield some of the benefits that she is claiming, those benefits would be unlikely to be passed on to consumers unless we also reform switching and the information available to consumers, so that more are willing to vote with their feet by moving their business elsewhere? It is not just the over-75s who are less likely to switch; the entire market is insufficiently informed or able to switch conveniently to have that kind of consumer pressure on producers.

Caroline Flint: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We could look at lots of different policies to improve customer choice and the ability to move more flexibly between suppliers. My point is that, whatever we do to the retail side of the consumer offer, we must deal with how the market works. Even the best tariff that we have at the moment might still not be a good one, because of how the wholesale market works. When I met companies that are part of Nord Pool, they did not voice the concerns that the Secretary of State mentioned today about hampering investment. Actually, I am pleased to share with the House the fact that over the past 18 months I have seen some movement in a number of the energy companies in the UK as well. I think that they are beginning to realise that some openness and transparency in the market would serve them and the British public well.

Mark Spencer: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I will make some progress.
	A pool or open exchange would have one other big advantage over the current market arrangements. The Energy Bill introduces contracts for difference to encourage investment in low-carbon sources of electricity. Those are essentially contracts with low-carbon electricity generators to pay a fixed price for the power that they produce. If the price that the generator receives in the market is less than the agreed strike price, consumers are liable to make up the difference. At the moment, with such little trading happening on the open market, there is no reliable way to work out what the market price actually is.
	In August, the Secretary of State published more information on how contracts for difference will work, but what did it say on the question of how to work out market prices for baseload power? Let me quote from paragraph 15 of annex B of the draft operational framework, with which I am sure he is familiar. It states that
	“indicating the precise source of prices, based on current price publications, in detail today would not be useful.”
	Actually, I think that knowing how many billions of pounds of consumers’ money will be allocated would be pretty useful, but without a pool, I simply do not see how the Government will work it out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Caroline Flint: I am going to make some progress.
	Alongside our proposals for a more competitive open energy market, the motion calls for a much tougher regulator than we have had in the past. As I said earlier, in its report the Select Committee echoed many of our criticisms of Ofgem over the past year. I do not intend to rehearse all those criticisms, as it could take some time, but I want to urge the House to support one important change. In a properly competitive market, cost reductions should be passed on as quickly and as fully as cost increases. At the moment, when wholesale costs increase, bills go up like a rocket, but when wholesale costs fall, bills fall like a feather, if at all. That is why our motion calls on the House to support the establishment of a tough new regulator with a statutory duty to monitor the relationship between the prices that energy companies pay for their energy and the bills that the public pay and the power to force the companies to cut prices when wholesale costs fall.
	Why is this all so important to the public? Rather than never having had it so good, as the Government try to tell them, rising energy bills are one of the main reasons why they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Even in better times, though, the public deserve a fair deal. This problem is not confined to the poorest. Millions of people are facing real hardship because of a cost-of-living crisis reinforced, I am afraid, by the Government’s complacency over soaring energy prices, incompetence in helping the public to insulate their homes and indifference to the plight of our oldest citizens paying over the odds for the energy that they use. Last year, there were 24,000 excess winter deaths in our country. Even on the Government’s revised definition, well over 2 million households are in fuel poverty, and the gap between their bills and what they can afford to pay is growing ever wider.
	The Opposition’s job is to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account, but it is also to develop alternative ideas to tackle the challenges that the country and its people face. The risk, of course, is that the Government pinch them. Today I tell the House that, with the Energy Bill still going through Parliament, if our proposals can help to restore people’s faith in the energy market and get people a fairer deal, I gladly offer them up. I commend the motion to the House.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Opposition for providing this opportunity for me to set out the action that the Government are taking to help people and businesses keep their buildings as warm as possible and their bills as low as possible. We need to help hard-pressed people and businesses as much as possible. I will spend some time setting out how the Government are doing far more than the previous Government in helping consumers with the cost of living, especially energy
	bills. The debate has already been very instructive. We have begun to explore Labour’s energy policy in more depth, and it has been found wanting. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) offered up her policy proposals and thinks that we may wish to take them. Let me tell the House that we shall not be doing so.
	I asked the right hon. Lady whether she believes that we need more investment in the UK’s energy sector, and she said that she does. I asked whether she accepts that investors might wish to see a return on that investment—some profit—and she was commendably clear that she believes that profit is needed. But when I asked her what she thought excessive profit—unfair profit—was, there was no answer. Yet given her motion, her speech and her press release, one would be forgiven for thinking that she had a view on what prices were fair and what profit levels were right. The problem is that it is not clear whether she wants any more competition or regulation. At times, she seemed to be advocating a wholesale re-regulation of Britain’s energy markets, with price controls—perhaps profit controls. Is she advocating price and profit controls? We need to know. What exactly is Labour proposing? If she is not proposing those, as she sometimes appears to do, we need to know how she is planning to deal with the problems she raises. [Interruption.] I am coming to the issues in the motion. The problem is that they are so weak that we do not believe they are really what she is proposing.

Tom Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned regulation. Given Ofgem’s record, is that really the sort of regulation he wants? We have seen reductions in wholesale prices withheld from consumers for a very long time and yet increases passed on to them, and a failure to ensure effective competition within the market.

Edward Davey: I will discuss Ofgem in detail later, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be patient. I do not accept his party’s position on Ofgem and I will say why not in some detail later.

Gloria De Piero: The Secretary of State has mentioned profit levels. Is it not clear that it is not possible to talk about profit levels without also talking about the need for a regulator with teeth? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?

Edward Davey: Actually, when we talk about profit levels, we need to talk about competition. One of the core points of our policy is to increase competition, which the previous Government failed to do. Yes, regulation has a role, and I will discuss that, but competition has a much greater role.

Alan Whitehead: What proportion of the total investment that the departmental estimates claim will be needed for plants, transmission, grids and connections will come from the big six energy companies? Will it be most, some or a small proportion of it? Does the Secretary of State think that the big six may not be the only game in town as far as investment in our future energy supplies is concerned?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in his usual informed way. The big six will be a big part of that investment profile, but as he will know, their balance
	sheets are weaker than they were in the past as a result of the recession, and there will be other investors. That means we will have to work harder to get that investment, but some of it will come from the big six.

Mark Spencer: The Opposition’s suggestion of an energy pool is an interesting one. Which party was in power in 2001 when the energy pool was abolished?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which I will come to later. It was the Labour party.
	The UK faces a huge challenge, which was made much worse by the failure of the Labour party when in government to even begin to tackle Britain’s energy and climate change problems—a lamentable Labour record, which I will return to shortly. The challenge that I as Secretary of State am tackling is the urgent need to attract massive investment while at the same time helping people with high energy bills. We are trying to attract that investment in a much more unfavourable economic and energy climate than Labour faced. The recession, and especially its impact on investors, has meant that people are less willing to invest, so we have to try harder to attract that essential investment.
	We face global energy markets that are much tighter than they were during Labour’s time. International wholesale fossil fuel prices, which account for up to half of a typical household bill, have gone up by 50% over the past five years. The vast majority of countries are, like us, seeing energy bills go up, but unlike other countries whose recent Governments invested in energy, Britain faces another massive cost pressure on energy bills, all because Labour failed to invest. The synthetic anger and synthetic policies of the Opposition do not fool anybody.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Davey: No. I want to make some more progress and then I will let the hon. Lady in.
	We need a genuine debate. I pay tribute to the Energy and Climate Change Committee for its report “Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty”, which I welcomed on the day it was published. It is more balanced and informed than many contributions to this critical debate and we will respond formally to it soon. Essentially, the debate is about how to get the balance right between regulation and competition, the regulations we need and how we can boost competition.
	To be fair to the right hon. Member for Don Valley, her motion and part of her speech covered those issues. Her problem is her party’s record and the inconsistent and, frankly, incoherent policies she seems to want to adopt. Let us consider her three-pronged policy package: abolishing Ofgem and replacing it with Ofgem 2; dropping Ofgem’s reforms of the wholesale market in favour of reintroducing a pool; and tackling, in some way, the big six.
	It is a fascinating package, because it completely reverses some of the very few things Labour actually did on energy policy. You couldn’t make it up. Labour set up Ofgem in the first place in 1999. On Labour’s watch, Ofgem abolished retail price regulation. It gets worse for Labour because five years ago the Leader of the Opposition, when he did my job, said that he was strengthening Ofgem. If the Labour party wants to
	abolish Ofgem, which it set up and which was strengthened by the Leader of the Opposition, what on earth went wrong?
	We are ensuring that Ofgem’s powers are increased. We have taken a far more measured approach to the independent regulator. We are ensuring that it and we are on the side of the consumer. We started with a review of Ofgem three years ago. We decided on some reforms and are implementing them. We are giving Ofgem tough powers to compensate consumers when an energy firm does something wrong—something that the Leader of the Opposition forgot to do when he was doing my job. Labour was not on the side of the consumer when it was in government. It is noteworthy how much tougher Ofgem has been since the coalition came to power in promoting competition in retail and wholesale markets, in which it has been strongly supported by us.
	I will ask the right hon. Member for Don Valley another question—perhaps she will answer this one. Would she keep the tougher powers that we have given Ofgem? Given that it is improving competition in the wholesale and retail markets, would she abandon those reforms? I will give way to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), because perhaps he will be able to answer.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State knows full well that what he is saying is disingenuous. When Labour created the new electricity trading arrangements, we were moving from two major companies to six. When it created the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements, it expanded the transmission arrangements as well. When it introduced Ofgem, it was introducing a regulator into a competitive situation. He knows full well that in 2007 and 2008, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, energy prices were going down. It is in the last few years that they have rocketed by 41%. All the accusations that he has just made are phoney and he knows the reality.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in this Chamber long enough to know that he should be asking a question rather than making a speech.

Edward Davey: I was not making phoney accusations, but giving the facts and the history. Labour may want to run away from its history, but we will hold it to its record.
	Before I talk about the action that I and the Government are taking to help consumers, let me return to Labour’s three-point plan, having already demolished its first proposal to abolish Ofgem. The House might like to note that the abolition of Ofgem is not recommended by the Energy and Climate Change Committee.
	Labour’s second proposal is to drop Ofgem’s long-awaited reforms of the wholesale energy market in favour of reintroducing the pool. It was Labour that abolished the pool just over 10 years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) reminded the House, at an estimated cost of £1.4 billion. Labour said that is was not working—wait for it!—in the interests of
	consumers. Apparently things have changed. However, under the policies that Labour put in place after it abolished the pool, things have not got much better. Labour’s abolition of the pool produced the vertically integrated energy markets that we see today. Independent generators find it tough to get into the wholesale market because of the changes that Labour made. Independent suppliers do not find the wholesale market competitive enough to supply their customers. Electricity prices are therefore likely to be higher than they should be.
	The Government and Ofgem want to fix Labour’s mistake. We do not want to reintroduce the pool, because that would be an expensive distraction and would not tackle the real problem, which is liquidity in the forward markets. We are going to tackle that with a well thought through package that is designed to drive competition to help consumers. Ofgem’s “secure and promote” proposals include the idea of a market maker and mandating the six vertically integrated companies—the big six—to publish the prices at which they will buy and sell up to two years in advance. That will help independent suppliers and large power producers.
	As Secretary of State, I want to be sure that such reforms by the regulator work and have teeth, so that they drive competition. That was why I introduced into the Energy Bill reserve powers to act should Ofgem’s reforms not work. In other words, whereas Labour wants to go back to a failed policy that it got rid of itself, we are taking the tough measures needed to boost competition and help the consumer.

Albert Owen: The Secretary of State said that he had improved and strengthened Ofgem. One issue that I have raised with him and his predecessor is extending its remit to cover customers who are not on the mains gas grid. Has he had a chance to look at that, and does he personally support giving it the strength to deal with those customers, as it does with those on mains gas? Yes or no?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman asked that question when I appeared before the Energy and Climate Change Committee, and I told him then that I would examine the matter. I am afraid that we have not come to any conclusions—he only asked me a month or two ago—but I am happy to look at that. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is extremely concerned about the high prices paid by consumers who are off the gas grid, as I am. When we examine the research on fuel poverty, we see that some of the worst is among those customers, so this Government will do something about it where the last Government did not.

Alan Whitehead: Is the Secretary of State aware that at least one of the big six energy companies forward-trades for only one week in this country? Trading beyond one week ahead is taken out of this country. Will he explain the impact that his proposals will have on that trading arrangement, so that it is made wholly transparent?

Edward Davey: Let me be clear that we have an independent regulator, which the Labour party tends to forget. I should say to my colleagues that under the EU third package on energy, we have to have an independent regulator. The proposals that have been made are Ofgem’s,
	but I am on the record as supporting them strongly. As I have explained, Ofgem has proposed a market maker system, whereby the six vertically integrated companies will be mandated to sell power in the forward markets in the UK.
	What about the third element of Labour’s package? It is a bit vague, talking about tackling the big six. The House should know from what I have said that we are already doing that through competition. What did Labour do in office? In 1998, there were 14 firms in the electricity supply market retailing electricity to customers. By 2010 there were just six, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said. Rather than promote competition to help consumers, Labour did the reverse, and it now promises to undo what it did. What a shambles the Opposition policy is, and what a shambles the last Labour Government were.
	If Labour’s energy policy would really help consumers, will the right hon. Member for Don Valley tell the House by how much the average energy bill would fall under her party? She tells us that she is proposing radical changes, so what would the impact be for consumers? We published detailed analysis of the impact on people’s bills of our energy and climate change policies, and it showed our policies helping people by keeping their bills lower than they would have been. We need to know what the impact of her policies would be.
	As I have made clear, we have policies to help hard-pressed consumers and to help improve competition in the retail electricity market, including policies with Ofgem to help consumers. On the supply side, we have deregulated to make it easier for smaller suppliers to enter the market. We now have our “offtake of last resort” mechanism through an amendment that I introduced into the Energy Bill in the other place, and we are supporting Ofgem’s reforms to the retail market to deliver tariff simplification and get a better deal for more consumers. Labour failed to do that even when pushed to do so in the House. The confusing array of tariffs—there were a huge number—got to such a point that it was hindering competition and hurting consumers, not helping them and driving competition. We are right to back Ofgem with more reserve powers so that we can ensure that vulnerable people are not left being fleeced on so-called dead tariffs, and so that people find it easier to choose and switch.

Caroline Flint: The Secretary of State talks about providing Ofgem with more powers. Does it not concern him that we and the Energy and Climate Change Committee have identified that it has not been using the powers that it already has? How the regulator sees its role in relation to the energy market is at the heart of the problem. Following the recent report, which was a forensic examination of how the market works, it disregarded the recommendations of the independent consultant, and the Select Committee says that it should reconsider the matter. A regulator not using the powers that it already has is worrying, and that is at the heart of some of the problems that we face.

Edward Davey: On the Committee’s proposals about whether Ofgem should pursue the BDO recommendations on accounting transparency, the right hon. Lady will have to wait until we publish our response to the Committee.
	However, I disagree strongly with her that Ofgem is not using its powers. It is certainly using its powers under us, which is why we have the retail market review delivering the tariff simplification that Labour failed to introduce, and why we are seeing reform proposals for the wholesale market, which Labour failed to do.

John Robertson: rose—

Edward Davey: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who is a distinguished member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee.

John Robertson: This reinvention of history is an absolute disgrace and you do this place no favours whatsoever. You have stated in front of the Committee that Ofgem is not doing the job it should be doing, and said that you were going to do something about it. We are still waiting.

Edward Davey: I always find the hon. Gentleman to be an interesting colleague when I come before the Committee, and with interesting questions. We will respond to the Committee’s report. Of course it is right for colleagues to have criticisms of Ofgem, but the question is what they are going to do about it. Do they want to spend lots of time abolishing the regulator completely, or do they want what we want, which is to make it stronger and give it tougher powers? We have a much better record. We have not just relied on the regulator. Through our collective switching pilot, which we will report on in the autumn, we are trying new ways to help get customers and consumers—especially the most vulnerable consumers—a better deal.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I want to make some progress. Fuel poverty has been rightly mentioned, and ours is a comprehensive approach on which we have consulted fully and on which we will continue to work with all stakeholders. Having published our fuel poverty strategic framework, we are planning to publish our full fuel poverty strategy early next year, and it will be a marked improvement on the past for several reasons.

Luciana Berger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: This will have to be the last intervention because I need to complete my remarks.

Luciana Berger: This House was anticipating the fuel poverty strategy by the end of this year. Will the Secretary of State confirm what he just said, which was that we should now expect it to be delayed into the new year?

Edward Davey: I said it would be published early in the new year. First, with our low-income, high-cost measure, and also by measuring the depth of fuel poverty—something never done by the previous Government—we will have a much better handle on this worrying and difficult problem. Secondly, by linking fuel poverty far more closely to the energy efficiency of homes of those in fuel poverty, we will target resources better and more effectively. Thirdly, I want to look at new ways to ensure fuel poverty is prioritised, for example by examining and emphasising links with poor health.
	To me the evidence is clear. If we beat fuel poverty, we can improve the health of hundreds of thousands of our citizens, and we will continue to give people direct help with their bills, whether through our warm home discount, the winter fuel allowance, or our higher cold weather payments. We want to get real help—money off—for the most vulnerable, and we want to do more for energy efficiency and help people save energy, save money and keep warm.
	I am pleased with the huge and maintained demand for green deal assessments, with nearly 60,000 completed. I am also pleased to see how the supply chain continues to grow, and to hear about new schemes that new players continue to launch. Along with the success of the energy company obligation, with almost 150,000 installations completed, I believe the infant market of the green deal will grow and grow and bring the major change we want. With our emphasis on competition and helping vulnerable consumers directly, and with our energy efficiency policies, the coalition is delivering for people in difficult times. Labour failed to deliver in easy times.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must reduce the time limit to six minutes to get everybody in.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber under your leadership, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for using the dreaded “you” word earlier. Of course, I was not referring to you, but addressing the Secretary of State.
	I have never been as disgusted by a contribution from a member of the Opposition as I have today—[Laughter.] I meant to say “member of the Government.” I do not think this is funny; it is a serious subject. We are talking about people’s lives. If hon. Members want to have a laugh, they can go somewhere else and do it.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), know that the Secretary of State’s performance broke something the House used to have—hon. Members working together on energy. We know there are problems, many of which are outwith our control. The previous Government had the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition. He was not a member of that Government.
	The Opposition have supported the Government in trying to move forward to ensure that the lights stay on and that people have the money to switch their lights and heating on, and to cook their food. However, come this winter, people in my constituency will have to decide whether to eat, heat or pay their rent. Government Members might think that is funny, but I do not. It is important and we should work together to ensure that people do not have to make such decisions, and to ensure that they can eat, heat and pay their rent. Sadly, I do not believe that will be the case.
	The Government’s report—the Hills report—said that tens of thousands of people will die because of Government policy, no matter which party was in government. The
	fact is that the current Government asked for the report, but they have done virtually nothing about trying to relieve people’s problems in paying for their heating, eating and rent. I want to work with the Government to ensure that people do not have those problems, but on today’s performance, it would appear that the Government want to draw battle lines because there will be an election in a few years’ time. So be it. The Secretary of State’s performance today was a disgrace. He had no ideas. All he could talk about was what happened 10 years ago—he could not look forward to what his Government should be doing or ask the Opposition to help them to get there. He did not want to do it. I am sorry about that, but if we want to fight about where we are going, let’s do it.
	I must tell the Secretary of State—he knows—that the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report said that there was a lack of transparency in the Government and Ofgem. I do not necessarily want to get rid of Ofgem. It has a job to do, but I want it to be able to do its job without being frightened. I see a bullying tactic from the Secretary of State, which leads me to believe that there is a good reason why Ofgem has not been doing its job properly and not doing what it should be doing. It is too frightened of repercussions from the Government. I hope I am wrong, but I see something today that I did not think I would see from a Secretary of State. To treat my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) as he did was, to say the very least, not gentlemanly. At least he could pay credit to the fact that the Opposition have put ideas forward. He might not like the ideas, but the fact is that ideas were put forward. If he wants to stymie them and ensure that we have a shouting match between Government and Opposition, he has drawn the battle lines.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Opposition should put forward ideas. One of their ideas in the motion was to reintroduce the pool, which Labour abolished in government. What is different about the arrangements Labour proposes from the ones they abolished 12 years ago?

John Robertson: That is a ludicrous question. Way back then, things were completely different. Prices for electricity and gas were so much lower than they are today. We have moved on. We talked about it back then, but nobody listened. We knew there would be a shortage in delivery of electricity and gas, and that we would run out of North sea gas and oil, but we did not look at how to go forward. We understood that we were not going to build any nuclear power stations, but we have gone back on that as well, because we have realised that we have to have a base load so that people can keep their lights on. If we do not do that, business will go down the tubes, people will not be able to heat their houses and we will have neglected the job that we were put here to do—to look after the people of this country.
	It is important that we work together to make sure that we build these power stations. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, does not like nuclear power stations, and nor does the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), but it is important that we have them. We must have a power base that ensures that we can keep the country running, with a security of supply that we can depend on.

Charles Hendry: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore regret the years from 1997 to 2007 when nuclear was off the agenda completely, and would we be in a better position if nuclear had been able to advance during that period?

John Robertson: The short answer is yes, I do regret it. But I also regret what happened before that, because in the 1980s and early 1990s we knew that we had to build new power stations, but we did not do a lot about it. We built some gas-powered stations, but we knew that we would run out of gas unless we went to the middle east or Africa to get it. The one issue that struck home with everyone was security of supply. When Tony Blair stood up and said that in this Chamber, people asked, “What has happened? He has changed his mind.” But he understood that something had happened in the world that meant that we had to ensure we had security of supply.
	The hon. Gentleman did an excellent job as a Minister, but he will remember that it was support from him and his colleagues that helped us to get to where we are today. The Secretary of State would not be a Minister if it had not been for what happened in those days because there would not have been an Energy and Climate Change Department or Committee. We did that together, and we have to go forward together. I hate this fighting and having a go at each other—“Your policy was wrong, our policy is right.” That is a portrayal of history that I do not recognise. What was done at the time was right for the time. We have moved on and we need to make things better.
	If the Secretary of State wants my support, he needs to have a better attitude. If he wants my help, he should at least listen to what we have to say. He does not have to follow it, but he should at least look as if he is listening.

Peter Lilley: It is a privilege to follow my colleague on the Select Committee, whose passion for the concerns of his constituents about their energy bills I share, both because my constituents also rate this the most important issue in their cost of living and because I had the privilege of visiting his constituency at his invitation and meeting many people there. Their incomes are lower—temperatures are lower too—and so it is even more important for him to get the costs down. That is why we have to address these issues objectively and honestly.
	The motion is disgraceful in two respects. First, it does not mention the one item of energy bills that is within the control and discretion of the House—the additional costs that we impose on people through the switch from fossil fuels to renewables. It is the only factor that we directly control, but the Opposition ignore it. We know that the least costly renewable, onshore wind, is at least twice as expensive as fossil fuels in generating electricity. Offshore wind is three times as expensive. I suspect that photovoltaics are a multiple of that. Already, the cost of renewables adds 5% to gas bills, 14% to electricity bills and 9% overall. That is a lot and it is expected to rise, but people might be surprised that it is not even higher still, given that wind is so much more expensive than fossil fuels. The reason for that is that the figures hugely understate the extra costs that
	every household in the country is bearing because of the switch to renewables. I have a letter from the Secretary of State in which he acknowledges that only a third of the cost of renewables falls directly on households’ energy bills, while two thirds falls on the non-domestic sector. In other words, that two thirds leads to a rise in the cost of all the other products that we consume because of the rise in the cost of electricity.

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is not correct when he talks about 9% of bills resulting from support for renewables. The majority of that is made up of support for tackling fuel poverty, dealing with energy efficiency, the warm home discount and the carbon price floor. A much smaller part is due to support for renewables.

Peter Lilley: That is the total impact of Government policies. Whatever the figure is, my constituents and the constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) are paying it. Overall, if one third of the cost of renewables is falling on households directly, the other two thirds also falls on households. There is no such thing as industry in this case. All costs are borne by individuals: by consumers and employees, and by pensioners through the impact on the value of shares and profits that are held largely by pension funds. We should not allow the costs we are imposing on people to be ignored or understated.
	The second disgraceful aspect of the Opposition motion is the pretence that the rise in energy bills we have experienced in recent years is largely or entirely due to a rise in profits. I wish that were true. If it were true that the rise in profits accounted for the 41% rise in gas prices and the 20% rise in electricity prices, undoubtedly those profits would be excessive and we could bring down profits and prices by greater competition or better regulation. Sadly, however, it is not true. Table 6 of the Select Committee’s report records that the average profit margin of the big six is 7.6%, which cannot account for the massive 20% and 41% increase in prices.

Caroline Flint: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what aspect of the profit margins he is basing those figures on?

Peter Lilley: That is the average of both generating profits and distributions profits. It is in table 6 of the report, which I am sure the right hon. Lady has read assiduously. She can check it if she wishes.
	The right hon. Lady refused to answer a question about what a correct level of profit would be, but I cannot believe that she thinks profits are more than twice as high as they need to be. Even if we were to halve the profit level from 7.6% to 3.8%, the effect on prices would be very small compared with the huge increase we have seen. As we all know, the increase is largely the result of the increase in fuel prices, which is outside the control of Governments.
	The suggestion that all energy companies have seen massive rises in profits is also dispelled by table 4, on page 27 of the report. Indeed, the Committee referred to the figure given in the Labour party’s motion of an increase in profits of £3 billion, which I think comes from Consumer Focus. The report states:
	“Table 4, however, doesn’t appear to support this.”
	Table 4 shows what has happened to companies’ profit margins from 2007 to 2011. For EDF, the average profit margin was 15.7% and went down to 8.5%. For SSE, it went from 4.2% to just 0.8%. For British Gas Centrica, it has gone down from 7.3% to 5.6%. For Scottish Power, it has come down from 11% to 4.4%. For E.ON, it has come down from 6.8% to minus 2.2%. For npower, it has come down from 12.2% to minus 5.5%. Therefore, the idea that there is huge scope for us to bring down excess profits, and thereby prices, through regulation or improved competition is sadly not correct, and it is dishonest to pretend that it is.

David Mowat: I think we are using the term “profit” quite loosely, particularly the Opposition. What matters in judging the profitability or effectiveness of these companies is return on capital employed. That is how they measure themselves for the investments they make and the returns they get. I do not believe there is any evidence that the return on capital employed has increased in the last five or six years. If it had, those on the Opposition Front Bench would put that to the House.

Peter Lilley: My hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely correct. People would do well to note what he has said.
	The most important issue to our constituents is the cost of living, and within the cost of living it is energy prices. Energy prices have largely been driven up by factors outside our control. The one factor within our control is the cost of renewables. We are hypocritical if we shed salt tears for our constituents while we, through the only area where we have discretion, are driving those costs up higher and are set to do so much further still in future.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), my colleague on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change with whom I have many discussions. I do not agree with him on many issues, but we have great discussions. His speech today was not an attack on our motion—I did not identify anything in the motion that he was referring to—but a critique of the Government, as well as previous Governments. I stand by social tariffs. It is right to help the poorest in our society, who are suffering. That is important. The Secretary of State was right in his intervention on the right hon. Gentleman to point out that he was not talking about just renewables; rather he was talking about many of the social tariffs that successive Governments have supported and that I think we should support into the future.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that energy prices remain a big issue for all our constituents; they have risen by some 20% in real terms since 2007, while average bills have risen by a staggering £300 since 2010, as the motion says. The motion rightly refers to the Energy and Climate Change Committee report on prices, profits and poverty. The inquiry discovered the complexities of the current, vertically integrated system and found it difficult to establish the profits and losses on the companies’ balance sheets. It is not that the
	companies do not have small or large margins—the right hon. Gentleman referred to that—but that we do not have clarity. We cannot really see what profits are made in which parts of their businesses. That is why the report called for a simpler methodology agreed between the regulator and the energy companies, so that we can identify clearly what profits and losses are made by the companies.

David Mowat: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask for more transparency in the way that we judge this issue. One way of judging whether any market abuse is taking place is to look at the end price. I have a list from the EU Portal—this is from page 2 of 8—of gas prices in 27 European countries, which shows that the UK is the 26th most expensive. That does not imply that there is abusive behaviour here, or if there is, there is a lot more in other places.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I am sticking to the report and the evidence base that we were given.
	Our report identified—this is important—poor communications between the energy companies and the public. It is fair to say that some companies are now getting it, because of strong lobbying from consumer groups and the work done by the Select Committee in identifying the complexity of tariffs and how many there are.

John Robertson: Was not part of the problem the fact that we did not know how much profit was made on the generation side? It was estimated to be something like 20% of turnover, which, when added to the profits that everyone has been talking about, starts to become excessive. The other thing that was wrong was that the companies refused to turn over their books, so unless someone had a good degree in accountancy, they would not know where the money was spent.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it was complex. I recall a conversation that I had with the new chief executive of E.ON, who has a master’s degree in mathematics. He told me—he has also said this in public—that he could not understand an E.ON bill because it was so complex. He has now taken steps to simplify the bills.
	Energy markets are not delivering the low, stable prices that we were promised at the time of privatisation. The short-term profits that are said to have resulted from the privatisation of gas have meant long-term pain for many of our constituents, who have been paying higher prices for their gas and electricity in recent years. Switching is not an option for everyone, and it has not been taken up by the majority of people. We are paying high prices for our gas and electricity and the switching of tariffs is not working.
	There is also mistrust between the public and the energy companies, as we have discussed in a number of debates. It remains a concern that prices are rising quickly, and that the price to the consumer goes up considerably when the global price of oil increases but does not go down nearly so quickly when the global price is reduced. I believe that there is consensus between the Government and the Opposition that we should examine that issue with the regulator, to establish how
	best to deal with it. Ofgem has done some good work on that already. However, I have to take issue with the Secretary of State’s comment that he was putting pressure on the regulator and that all the good results were coming from that Government pressure. When things do not work out quite so well for the consumer, the regulator is described as independent. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. The regulator is independent, and I believe that it needs more teeth. It also needs to use some of the powers that it already has.
	In the time that I have left, I want to talk about the possibility of giving Ofgem a wider remit in regard to people who are not on mains gas, of whom there is a considerable number. I have been campaigning for them since about 2007, when gas prices became a real issue. The prices went up, but for those who are not on the grid, they went up considerably more. That has become a huge issue. The alternatives to mains gas are oil and other forms of gas.

Mark Spencer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I do not have much time left, and I want to develop this important point. I have raised it with the Secretary of State and with the Ministers who have appeared before the Select Committee. They have always tried to push the subject away by saying that it is a matter for Ofgem. In the Select Committee, however, I have put questions to the chief executive of the regulator, and he says that it is a matter for the Government. It is time for us all to sit down and look at this together, because the rise in prices is causing great anxiety and hardship for many of our constituents.
	I want to see the establishment of a champion for those customers who do not have mains gas or electricity, as well as for those who do. Those customers do not benefit from dual fuel deals. We can talk about an average price for a household, but they will be paying more. I would appreciate a straight response from the Secretary of State on this. A Back-Bench Committee and an all-party group have looked into it and made recommendations. I am sure that he has seen their report on the off grid, and I believe that we can work together to establish that champion.
	I want to make a few more brief points. We talk about the domestic customers who have been severely hit by the uprating in prices, but businesses, including small businesses, are also affected. I would like businesses to be able to compare prices in the same way that domestic customers can. When small businesses are set up, they are hit by rates and start-up costs, and they then get hit by high energy bills. However, it is difficult for them to switch from one company to another. To be fair, the Government are looking at this issue and trying to do something to help, but I believe that if those businesses could use a price comparison—instead of receiving bespoke prices from each individual energy company, as they do at present—they would have a greater choice. Businesses are telling me loud and clear that excessively high energy bills are resulting in a lack of investment in their business.
	My final point is on the cost and impact of the transmission of electricity and gas to the regions. The National Grid Company is a private, American-owned company that passes all its profits to shareholders.
	It passes any extra costs on to its customers via the generator. I would like to see National Grid acting in the British national interest, not in shareholders’ interests; I would like to see a not-for-profit organisation distributing our electricity. We could then have a bigger impact and reduce the transmission costs, which are considerable—about 16% of the energy prices that customers pay.
	Another problem is that people pay more for gas and electricity on peripheries and in rural areas, yet many of those areas produce that gas and electricity, which is unfair. I would like us to help customers in these areas more by looking at the cost of the transmission and distribution of electricity and gas.

Christopher Pincher: At risk of continuing the Select Committee love-in, may I also say that it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—a fellow member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee? I am pleased to speak in this Opposition debate, which is important to our constituents.
	Let me gently chide the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on her motion and her speech for revelling in past glories, without recognising the last Labour Government’s errors of omission and commission with respect to energy policy. If we look at energy policy in the long view, its impact on energy prices and the effect of those prices on fuel poverty, we will remember that between 2004 and 2009, fuel poverty effectively trebled as a direct consequence of the energy price increases—largely gas prices, which went up by 42% in the Blair years between 2003 and 2007, and by a whopping 74% by 2009. The Leader of the Opposition, who tabled today’s motion, should be somewhat embarrassed to remember that for some of that time he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, so that happened partly on his watch, as he watched and saw 2.8 million more people being trapped by the scourge of fuel poverty.
	In the first decade of this century, Labour, with laudable intent, spent £25 billion on measures to alleviate fuel poverty, but those measures were swamped by the increase in energy prices—not a description that I chose to use, but one chosen by the Library. Labour’s solution, which was to spend more and more money to try to alleviate fuel poverty was like sticking a plaster on a gaping wound, or like giving Angiers junior aspirin to a pneumonia patient: it dealt with the symptoms, not with the problem itself.
	In line with a feeling of consensus, we certainly need to find some new solutions. There are more, but I shall mention four of them, some already mentioned today. The first is to deal with the complexity of energy bills; we all agree that they are far too complex. Many consumers—possibly the poorest and the least educated —do not feel confident about switching their bills. About 75% of consumers have not switched their energy provider in the past two years, while 55% have not even looked to try. We certainly need to make the bills much simpler, so that consumers become more confident about switching. Tariffs, too, need to be made simpler, and we need to ensure that people are put on the lowest tariff that is best for them. The Energy Bill commits to that, and the Prime Minister is committed to it. I am sure that it will happen.
	The hon. Member for Ynys Môn—I would like to call him my hon. Friend—mentioned the difficulties energy companies seem to have in communicating with their consumers. That is true. I am a consumer. Nine months ago, I inherited a supply from RWE npower, but I have still not received a bill. The company has been unable to put me on a direct debit, and it does not call back when it says it will, leading me to wonder what confidence I can have in being able to deal sensibly with that company. We need Ofgem to make sure that these companies deal clearly, transparently and effectively with their customers.

Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Pincher: I will, because giving way will earn me an extra minute.

Tom Clarke: I hope that my intervention will be helpful.
	Some of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying is very relevant. Now that he has referred to the role of the regulator, let me ask him this. At a time when wholesale prices were falling rapidly but that fall in prices was not being passed on to the consumer, the best that Ofgem could say on Hogmanay—which is before new year’s eve—was that if the six companies continued to operate in the same way, they would have jam on their fingers. Does he think that that was enough?

Christopher Pincher: I can certainly tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee is concerned about Ofgem’s performance, and I think that the Government are as well. The Government must ensure that Ofgem acts more effectively to represent consumers.
	The fourth way in which I think we can help consumers to pay less and can deal with fuel poverty is by reducing our over-reliance on imported gas and oil, and hence our exposure to the fluctuations in international hydrocarbon prices, which is one of the reasons why bills have gone up like rockets, causing so many consumers so much pain.
	There is no easy solution to the problem of developing home-grown energy, much as its proponents may like to think that there is. Wind is not the solution in either the short or the long term, because it is intermittent. In the short term, nuclear is not the answer, because building it takes so long and is so costly. However, we could profit from proper exploration of the 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas that is buried beneath our feet—some 60 years’ worth of supply according to the current trajectory—to help to reduce our exposure to international prices and the cost that that implies.
	In the United States, which I realise is not a perfect mirror image of our country, the shale gas revolution has cut wholesale energy prices in half. Gas in the US now trades at a price five times lower than the price in Europe, and seven times lower than the price in Asia. That is of massive benefit to American industry. It gives it a competitive edge, so it can create more jobs and the people who become employed have the income with which to pay their power bills. It also reduces the cost to hard-pressed consumers. I therefore hope that we will pursue shale gas with a vengeance. I commend the Government for what they have already done in ending the moratorium, increasing the number of licences and—I
	hope, for only a short period—reducing the tax on start-ups, because this is one way in which we can ensure that energy costs are reduced.
	I hope that the Government will take those four points on board, and I look forward to their being addressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in, probably, a very short time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I intend to call the first Front Bencher to wind-up at 6.40 pm. No fewer than seven Members are now seeking to catch my eye, as a consequence of which, I am afraid, in a bid to accommodate each and every one of them, it is necessary for me to reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes, with immediate effect.

Sammy Wilson: This is an important debate. Many of our constituents are affected by the increase in fuel bills and by fuel poverty, and businesses throughout the United Kingdom are affected by the fact that they are up against competition from those in countries with lower energy costs and are unable to compete with them. We have lost thousands of jobs as a result of high energy prices in the United Kingdom.
	Some of the measures proposed in the motion are, of course, desirable. If we can redistribute the costs to help those who are in the greatest fuel poverty, we should of course do so. If an industry which is not totally competitive can be better regulated, that should of course happen—although regulation that is inconsistent or changes the rules too often will add to costs. A huge amount of investment that is needed, but capital markets will not make money available for investment if the rules are continually changing, so we must be very careful when we talk about the degree of regulation that should be applied.
	Like the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I want to make some comments about the element of our energy costs that is not dealt with in the motion. That part is the cost of decarbonising—as it is now called—our energy supply. Despite what people have said, it has added costs to the consumer and is going to continue to do so. We cannot be schizophrenic about this by on the one hand condemning the increase in energy prices and on the other hand supporting policies that are contributing to that.
	Let us look at the costs. Because renewable energy is so expensive, there is a compulsion to purchase electricity under the renewables obligation at much higher prices than fossil fuels. The figures have been quoted today. Offshore wind is now the favoured option. It is three and a half times more expensive than gas, and that will probably change further, especially as gas prices will come down with fracking.
	There are also the increased costs of distribution to link up all the diverse sources. The National Grid recently published a consultation document, “Demand Side Balancing Reserve and Supplemental Balancing Reserve”, in which it talks about linking into generators across the country which could lead to electricity being bought at 30 times the cost of that generated by gas.
	There is the question of all the back-up and infrastructure that will be required for when wind drops off, too. All those things need to be addressed, which means that many Members will have to tackle their prejudices on some of the issues around climate change and carbon in the atmosphere.
	The question of what to do about the energy reserve that we still have under the ground has been dodged today as well. What will our attitude be towards fracking? It has changed the energy market in America. Can it do the same here? That will be fiercely debated from both sides of the House.
	These issues need to be tackled, but they were not addressed in the motion, and it is therefore defective.

Mark Spencer: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is very important for my constituents. When the energy bills land on their doormats, the impact on their household budgets is enormous. All Members will therefore recognise how high up the agenda this subject has to be.
	We should take a moment to look at how we got into this position. GCSE economics tells us that demand and supply drive prices. If there is low supply and high demand, prices inevitably go up, and electricity prices have been rising by more than inflation for a long time now. That is because we as a nation have not addressed our electricity supply. We did not go to the trouble of building power stations when we should have done, but we cannot build a power station overnight. It takes a long time to get it through the planning process and to put the funding in place, and that process should have begun under the last Labour Government. We should now have been turning on nuclear power stations that could supply the base load to keep the lights on in this nation. We are having to pick up that difficult position and try to deal with it.
	At the same time that was happening, our coal-fired power stations have been going downhill. They have not been upgraded and repaired. We are therefore now in a situation in which the renewables sector is not growing fast enough, the nuclear power stations have not been built, and our coal-fired power stations are about to come to the end of their natural life. Dealing with that will be an enormous problem, and the impact on consumers will be massive.
	What are we going to do to deal with that? Credit is due to this Minister for starting to deal with some of the problems. He is trying to get the green deal moving so people can insulate their homes. He is trying to reduce their energy bills and educate them about how they can reduce their energy bills and consumption, and he is working with Ofgem to try to put pressure on the energy companies to reduce the tariffs so people’s bills can be squeezed lower. He has also addressed the need to build new power stations to get new electricity supplies on stream. This is not easy, because not only are energy bills increasing, but some of those new technologies are not very popular, certainly with my constituents. Some new technologies, such as anaerobic digestion, are palatable and people will tolerate them. However, people are not as enthused about wind turbines and they are certainly not enthused about energy recovery plants, such as the one proposed in my constituency at Bilsthorpe; people
	do not want incineration. I hope that the Minister will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and ask them to consider what they build and where they build it.
	Lastly, I wish to mention one thing that will have a big impact on some specific constituencies: the loss of concessionary coal for consumers who used to work in the coal industry. The collapse of UK Coal means that they will lose their right to free coal. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and talk to the Treasury to try to support those people, because that will have a big impact on them as the winter draws in.

Michael Weir: We must never forget that it has been estimated that for every 5% rise in energy prices a further 46,000 households go into fuel poverty. The Department’s own figures show that between 2010 and 2012 average domestic energy bills rose by an average of £250, with 78% of that increase resulting from higher gas prices and 22% from higher electricity prices. The escalation in energy prices cannot be looked at in isolation: just as energy bills are rising, so is the cost of road fuel, food and another essentials. Clearly, that has a serious impact on families, who cannot continue to absorb such large increases at a time when wages are, at best, static. I accept what the Secretary of State said about the energy companies having to make profits, but the issue is the amount of these profits and their substantial rise at a time when everybody else is having to tighten their belt. That needs to be examined more closely.
	In the Energy Bill, the Government sought to take powers to implement the Prime Minister’s promise to put everyone on the lowest tariff, but, unfortunately, as I have said many times, the Bill does not seem to have that effect. The wording does not require the energy companies to put people on the lowest tariff, but only to make an offer, which may be lost in the mass of paper we receive from them already. I suspect that many people are still not on the cheapest tariff. Even these changes fail to do anything to help some of the poorest in our society, who have to rely on pre-payment meters. Someone on a direct debit tariff may be fine, but someone on a pre-payment meter will still be stuck on a higher tariff, as meters are generally on a higher tariff than someone paying by direct debit. If the Government are truly intent on ensuring that everyone has the lowest possible bills, they need to ensure not only that that applies within the type of contract that people already have, which is what is happening at the moment, but that people can move to a cheaper type of contract.
	Particular problems are faced by those with pre-payment meters. It has always seemed to me slightly perverse that such meters are one of the few examples where consumers end up paying much more by paying cash in advance. The issue is important, and the Minister and I have debated it previously. Citizens Advice Scotland issued a report on energy recently, which showed that it had dealt with a massive number of people who had different energy issues. It said:
	“The cases highlighted by bureaux regarding difficulty paying are more commonly with regards to prepayment meters recouping an unaffordable amount for arrears every time the consumer tops up”.
	The problem is that not only does the tariff tend to be higher—to be fair, many companies now fix it at their standard tariff—but it is higher than the tariffs that can be achieved by, for example, direct debit. That is coupled with the fact that many, but not all, of these people on pre-payment meters are put on them because they have a debt, part of which is recouped every time they top up the meter. Because this debt is added on, they are, in effect, pushed further into debt. The report cites the case of a single parent with two children who currently loses £7 towards the arrears every time she puts £10 in the meter—the remaining £3 is simply insufficient. That situation has to be dealt with.
	The motion talks about putting those over 75 on the lowest tariff available, but the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) talked about the difference in tariffs between companies and it seems to me that that will not really hit the problem. We used to have a higher winter fuel allowance for more elderly people. We cannot go back to that, but perhaps we should be telling the energy companies that we should have a standard tariff across all the companies especially for elderly people to ensure that every one of them gets the lowest tariff irrespective of the company they are with, without their having to go through them all and having to switch. That would be the simplest way to do it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I found myself in an interesting position—and one that I am not used to—as I agreed with just about every word the Secretary of State said, probably because he veered well away from the thorny subject of renewables. That is the point that I shall concentrate on, following on from the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
	Before I do, let me say one thing about people’s bills. I received a bill from EDF a few weeks ago and it was possibly the most complex document I have ever received through the post—it had day tariffs, night tariffs and prices that were so much per kilowatt-hour for this and for the first 20 of that. If people are to be expected to understand their electricity bills, simplification is required. I would welcome anything that points us in that direction.
	Renewables, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, are the part of the debate that we in this House can affect. RWE npower issued a report in July on what will happen to energy prices in the United Kingdom in the coming years. It predicted all sorts of interesting things, but the commodity and production costs that make up 45% of an average bill will reduce by 2020 to 35% of an average bill as rising policy and transportation costs become more significant. Supplier costs—their cut, their profit—will remain about 16%, so where is the big increase? Transportation costs and the costs of updating the UK’s network of infrastructure to accommodate lower carbon and more distributed generation technologies are expected to add an extra £114 to the average domestic bill by 2020—a 124% increase on 2007 prices. That is the money for connecting turbines and other dispersed energy to the grid.
	Policy and regulation costs are expected to rise by 78% between 2013 and 2020. That is meant to pay for the low-carbon economy and significantly improve energy efficiency, as we have heard. Those are worthy aims but have huge costs attached. There are also huge costs for the consumer, who will end up paying for all those things. In 2011, National Grid produced a report entitled “Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020”. It talked about wind turbines and said that during periods of demand renewable generation output is likely not to be enough, but because it is a must-take resource, wind power will need to be constrained in some way.
	The Daily Telegraph took a snapshot of energy produced by wind farms on a still day this summer. It showed that a host of payments had been made by National Grid to shut down wind turbines so that they would not overload the electricity supply system.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will not give way; Mr Speaker would scowl at me like Speaker FitzRoy in the 1920s and ’30s. I do not want that to happen.
	The constraint payments reached £7.5 million for the first three weeks of August. If people are really concerned about fuel poverty, they should think about this: the increased cost of electricity due to the renewables obligation in 2009 may have pushed about 100,000 households into fuel poverty, and the wind element was responsible for 40,000 to 50,000. That information is from the fuel poverty dataset for 2009 produced by DECC.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) made the point that when the Prime Minister announced the Energy Bill policies on the hoof at Prime Minister’s Question Time, he told us that he would legislate to put customers on the cheapest tariff. That promise was reduced to a promise to simplify the tariffs that energy companies offered. I am sure that everyone would welcome simplification as an important tool in enabling customers to make a choice between different companies, but simplification by itself does not reduce energy prices.
	The simplification process now underway has in some cases led to people having to pay more for their energy, rather than less. I want to draw attention to those low users of energy, often those on low incomes, who are now worse off because of the insistence, as a result of the Ofgem review, on companies having both a standing charge and a unit rate. After years of trying to get standing charges reduced or abolished because they are particularly damaging for those on low incomes, we are now seeing pressure on companies to bring them back.
	A constituent who contracted me was told by npower—this applies to other companies and is more the fault of Ofgem trying to implement Government policies—that if he spent less than £27 on gas and £12 on electricity a month, he would see an increase in his overall costs. Indeed, he has worked out his energy costs and found that his bill would rise by between 50% and 60% as a result. That is an example of how, bluntly, inventing policy on the hoof, not thinking it through and then
	attempting to deliver it is damaging constituents. That is just one example of where I think the Government have to monitor carefully the effects of the policies to standardise tariffs that are being implemented. They must also ensure that companies do not end up profiting as a result of the way the tariffs have been introduced.
	As I said at the start of my speech, standardisation does not cut energy prices. There are clear examples—npower is not the only one—of customers now being worse off as a result of the way simplification has been put into effect. The Government need to review that straight away. We need to look at that to ensure that low energy users, particularly those on low incomes, do not lose out as a result of the Government’s policies.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the Opposition on bringing this matter before the House for consideration. In the minutes available, I want to focus on the latter part of the motion, specifically the reference to putting
	“all over-75 year olds on the cheapest tariff.”
	I suggest that we should go further and have a lower tariff for the over-75s. Everyday in my constituency office I see clearly the importance of addressing those issues, as other Members have indicated. I also see that the elderly people who come to my office have a clear decision to make between a bit of heat or something to eat. It is as simple as that.
	I want to offer a Northern Ireland perspective. Northern Ireland’s biggest energy company, Power NI, increased its household electricity bills in July by 17.8%, which means that every household will have to pay, on average, an extra £90 a year. That might be an inconvenience for some, but the reality for some of our elderly people is that it will mean sacrificing a luxury or a basic item to cover the difference. It will mean a bit of heat or something to eat. That will be the clear decision for them.
	I was horrified to learn from a press release on Age Sector Platform’s recent Belfast Pensioners Parliament that in 2012 the number of excess winter deaths in Northern Ireland was 496. All those people were over 65 years of age. The last time all excess winter deaths were older people was 14 years ago. It was high then, but in 2012 it was higher still. It is clear that older people are being hit hardest by the rising cost of energy and the reduction in their incomes. As other hon. Members have suggested, energy providers must ensure that our elderly are on the cheapest tariffs possible. Let us do something for those elderly people. By the way, I say for the benefit of all parties here that the elderly are consistently the people who vote. If they want to do something for their voters, I suggest they do something for the elderly.
	Age UK estimates that 1.5 million people aged over 65 and living in rural areas in England are reliant on oil. In other parts of the UK reliance on oil is even higher: it accounts for 11% of households in Wales and 70% in Northern Ireland. The price of oil is prohibitive. Few elderly people can afford to fill their tanks, even with the winter fuel allowance, and therefore cannot heat their homes. It is little wonder, as the shadow Secretary of State said, that 24,000 people in the UK have died as a result of cold-related illnesses over the past year.
	We should contrast that with the profits shown over the latest period. I am not against a company making a profit—not for one second—but let us do something for the people who are hardest hit and need the money more. I saw in the Metro newspaper that the profits of the big six energy companies have shot up by 74% since 2009, dwarfing the 13% rise in inflation. British Gas, E.ON, EDF Energy, npower, Scottish Power and SSE have enjoyed a £3.3 billion surge in profits as households have been hit by a 29% rise in bills. Profits from these groups, which provide energy to 98% of homes, rose from £2.15 billion in 2009 to £2.2 billion in 2010, £3.87 billion in 2011 and £3.74 billion in 2012. Against that, the typical domestic dual fuel bill has risen to £1,420 a year compared with £1,100 in May 2010, according to the regulator Ofgem. Surely it is past time that we did the right thing by the most vulnerable—the elderly—and used some of the companies’ profit margins to provide affordable heating. The time has come for the Government to act.

Sheila Gilmore: During much of this debate, the consumer, particularly the consumer in fuel poverty, has not always had the attention they need.
	Some of the systems that have been set up seem unduly complicated. When I first heard about the concept of the green deal, which preceded this Government—it was discussed under the previous Government—I wondered how we encourage people to put in the kind of long-term investment that will radically improve the energy efficiency of their homes. For many people, the pay-back time seemed too long. They took the view that they would probably be moving on and that their home might not be a permanent one—even if it eventually turned out to be so. The idea that people could get help through loans that could be secured to the property and pass from one household to another seemed to tackle some of those difficult problems.
	One can always come up with a good concept, but the implementation is often where it becomes difficult. In this case, a good idea has been let down by a great deal of the detail. The interest rates are extremely high compared with other means that people might have of borrowing money. A lot of people appear to have been interested enough to seek an assessment, but having done so, concluded that the deal was not good enough and would not give them the kind of pay-back that would make it all worth while, and thought, therefore, “I won’t bother with it after all.” Unless there is yet to be a dramatic level of take-up, that is the pattern that has occurred. It is a pity that a good idea has been let down in this way. We should be looking at ways to improve things.
	People are also finding it increasingly difficult to find out how to get their home better insulated and how to find out what sort of help is available. While it is absolutely right that energy companies should be expected to contribute to all that, whether the systems that are put in place actually work is another matter. Often the local authority is best placed to know where the problems are in their areas—where the types of housing are that need the most help. That is not just because councils are landlords. They know about all the other properties in the private rented sector where the problems are at their
	worst and where the difficulties lie. In my constituency, where a large proportion of the properties are tenements and flats, people face difficult issues about how to improve insulation.
	We need to be able to reach such people directly. People are getting phone calls from organisations and are not even sure what they are, although some are quite legitimate. Residents have told me that when they get these phone calls they think that it is somebody trying to sell them something they do not need so they put the phone down. That is not the right way to do this. Local authorities should be getting the funding they need to help people, even if some of it comes from the energy companies. That will be the way to really engage people in this process.

Luciana Berger: This has been a very important debate at a time when a cost-of-living crisis is hitting households all over our country. There have been many eloquent and powerful contributions and what we have heard paints a damning picture. We have heard that energy bills are soaring, profits for the big energy companies are sky-rocketing, energy efficiency is stalling and fuel poverty is deepening.
	The Secretary of State, who, sadly, is no longer in his place, was more concerned with defending Ofgem and the energy companies, which is reflective of an out-of-touch Government who are failing to stand up for hard-working families who are struggling up and down this country.
	I am not surprised that so many hon. Members have spoken about how their constituents are struggling to keep up with spiralling energy costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) spoke passionately about the choice some of his constituents might face between heating, eating and paying rent. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) mentioned his constituents’ anxiety when an energy bill drops through their letter box.
	The average dual fuel bill has shot up by more than £300 since the Prime Minister entered Downing street. Back in May 2010 a typical household paid £1,105 a year; the figure now stands at £1,420—a 29% increase in a little over three years. The cost of gas and electricity is a serious concern for too many families, regardless of whether or not they are technically in fuel poverty. According to the consumer watchdog Which? 80% of people are worried about the rising cost of energy and rank it among their top financial headaches.
	As people struggle to heat their homes, the energy giants are reaping ever greater profits. We saw over the summer how the big six energy companies have enjoyed a windfall of £3.3 billion in additional profits over the past three years, on top of the £2.2 billion profits they were already making. Of course, companies are allowed to make a profit. As the shadow Energy Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), has said, the energy industry plays a tremendous and vital role in our economy and in keeping the lights on, but that does not mean that we should ignore the need to reform how our energy market works. We need real reform to break the dominance of the energy giants, create transparency and openness, and protect the public from being ripped off.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has said, it is a real problem that we do not know exactly what the energy companies are making in profits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has referred to certain reports that show that the profits made on the supply side and those made on the generation side are massively different and we do not always see what they are.
	The second of two Energy Bills is currently making its way through Parliament without any significant Government proposals to help bill payers. All that has been offered is a broken promise, repeated by the Prime Minister today, to put everyone on the cheapest tariff, which has proved impossible to deliver. When my right hon. Friend raised this issue in her speech, we heard lots of chuntering from Government Front Benchers but no interventions to share with the House exactly what the Government are doing. It simply will not pass as a real answer for how to reform our energy market. Even the cheapest tariff in an uncompetitive market will not be a good deal.
	By contrast, today we have heard loudly and clearly what a Labour Government would do to fix our energy market. There are three key differences. We would open up the market and make it more transparent, and we would require energy companies to pool the power they generate and make it available to any retailer.
	At this point it is important that I highlight the crucial differences between a pool that we would seek to introduce and that which was in operation previously. When the old pool was put in place, there were just two generators, which meant that they were able to exert disproportionate influence on the pool price. Today there are many more generators, so it would be much more difficult to do that. The old pool was also a one-way pool, which meant that only generators could place bids for how much they were prepared to sell their power for.
	There is no reason why a new pool could not be a two-way pool, whereby both generators and suppliers place bids. That is how the Nord Pool works. The UK currently has two power exchanges where trades can take place: N2PX and APX. The volumes that are traded on the day-ahead exchanges are already increasing. If all generators and suppliers were required to trade 100% of their output and supply via those exchanges, it would have the same effect as introducing a pool.
	We need a tough new watchdog that has the power to pass on price cuts to consumers when the wholesale cost of energy falls. That has been underlined by the report of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, “Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty”, which states clearly that “Ofgem is failing consumers”. It also states that it has proved
	“unwilling to use the teeth it has.”
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn highlighted, there are many problems for customers who are off grid. We believe that the new regulator should assume responsibility for off-grid customers.
	The Select Committee report also points out that
	“rising prices are exacerbating fuel poverty.”
	Under the Government’s new definition, there are still nearly 2.4 million fuel-poor households. According to the Government’s own figures that were published last month, the gap between people’s fuel bills and what
	they can afford to pay has grown by £200 million over the past two years. That is an average of £494 for households that are struggling to meet their energy costs.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) highlighted the problems for customers who have prepayment meters and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the problems faced by his constituents, particularly older people, and the increase in excess winter deaths.
	Ministers have admitted that the number of people in fuel poverty is expected to rise over the next two years. That is why it is such a scandal that the Government have halved the support for people in fuel poverty. The Labour party would help those who are most in need. That is why we would require companies to put all pensioners who are aged over 75 on to the cheapest tariff. That is the right thing to do because it is the oldest in our society who are the most vulnerable in cold winters.
	We all know that if we get household energy efficiency right, it can reduce energy costs, create thousands of jobs and cut carbon emissions. However, the Government’s efforts to make our homes more energy-efficient are failing. I was not reassured by what the Secretary of State reportedly said at an event in the House last night. He told an audience that he knew the green deal would work because he could feel it in his bones. I do not know whether Members can recall any other Minister extolling the virtues of bones-based policy making, but the Opposition prefer to deal with the facts.
	The most recent figures show that just 132 households have signed on the dotted line for a green deal plan since the scheme went live. That is disappointing enough, but the real wake-up call for Ministers should be the number of green deal assessments. The Opposition desperately want to see better insulated homes in our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, the green deal is not good enough. The green deal will not achieve the ambition that we all want to see unless the Government stop being so complacent, listen to what industry leaders are saying and tackle the problems with the scheme.
	In conclusion, this is a motion for consumers. It speaks to the concerns of families across our country and clearly lays out what action we should be taking to make energy more affordable. It stands up for the people this Government like to claim they are on the side of. Today, they have an opportunity to prove it. I urge the Government and all Members to support our motion, and I commend it to the House.

Gregory Barker: This has been an interesting and timely debate. As we head into the autumn, I know that colleagues across the Chamber share their constituents’ worries about the rising cost of living and the strain that energy costs in particular can put on tight family budgets. That is why the coalition is determined to do everything it can to help hard-working families with their energy bills.
	Sitting here this afternoon listening to the Opposition Front Benchers, I could not help but recall the words of Marshal Talleyrand 200 years ago. When the ancien
	régime was briefly restored to the French throne after the defeat of Napoleon, Talleyrand famously said of the old, backward-looking, clapped out Bourbon royal family, “They learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.” Put another way, the old regime singularly failed to understand why they had been deposed by the people in the first place, or to learn from any of their previous mistakes.
	Is that not just old Labour all over? Labour, which saw heating bills more than double during its time in government. Labour, which in 13 years of government allowed real competition in the market to shrivel. Labour, which in 1997 inherited a diverse range of 14 competing companies and turned them into the big six. Labour, which drove British energy into the ground and failed to build a single nuclear power station. Its record on renewables was little better. After 13 years in office, Labour left Britain third from the bottom of the European league table for deployed renewable energy. It was Labour that allowed the cost of its green energy programmes to spiral out of control but failed to take real steps to decarbonise the sector; Labour that, after 13 years in power, left office with nearly 5 million vulnerable people living in fuel poverty; and Labour that, in the last Parliament, saw fuel poverty rise in every single year of the now Leader of the Opposition’s tenure as Energy Secretary.
	So what is the big idea that Labour has brought forward to the debate to help hard-pressed consumers? It has three ideas—hardly an energy revolution, but let me remind the House what they are. The first is to abolish the regulator that Labour created in 2000 and replace it with—yes, you’ve guessed it—another quango. It also wants to bring back the electricity pool, the same pool that it abolished back in 2001, and put all over-75s on the cheapest tariff—hardly a groundbreaking idea when we are already acting to do that, but for all consumers, not just the oldest 8%, so that all our constituents can benefit from a better deal.
	I will not pretend to the House that there are easy answers, simple solutions or quick fixes to driving down fuel poverty, driving up competition in the sector or delivering a better, fairer deal for hard-pressed consumers. However, unlike the Labour Government’s drift, inertia and failure to deliver, the coalition has rolled up its sleeves and is making a real difference.
	I want to spell out some of the bold, practical measures that the coalition is taking to help hard-working families, but before I do that I will address some of the important points that colleagues have made. We have heard from the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore).
	It was striking that not a single Labour Member spoke in favour of the Opposition’s proposal to abolish Ofgem, but two clearly disagreed with it. It was notable that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood made a
	thoughtful and constructive speech, and he was right to address both the causes of, and possible solutions to, our energy challenges. The hon. Member for Angus was also thoughtful, and I assure him that our simplification of tariffs is already having an impact. I also take on board his important points about prepaid meters.
	I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry about the need for bill simplification. We get it, and we are on it, but our entire grid is crumbling and requires big investment, whatever energy source we put into it. This year, onshore wind added just £9 to consumer energy bills. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn, the second Labour Member to disagree with Labour Front Benchers about abolishing Ofgem, made sound points about off-grid customers. We are looking carefully at the Committee report to which he contributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) spoke with great authority and gave a balanced approach to the complex issues we face.
	The coalition does not have a magic wand, and Labour’s legacy of debt, deficit and economic failure casts a long shadow over all Departments. Despite the imperative of dealing with Labour’s debts, we are taking action and setting a new radical and ambitious energy agenda. Unlike under the previous Government, there have been two energy Bills in three years. The green deal might be in its infancy—I listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East—but it is already building a new market in energy efficiency, and bringing far greater competition to the market and new choices for consumers.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady was not actually here for the debate. We are taking action to give more teeth to the regulator and compensate energy consumers who have been badly treated. We have embarked on radical market reform to unleash investment in modern clean energy, building our energy security that was so perilously ignored by Labour. We are also offering immediate help for our constituents. For example, Labour put the whole cost of the renewable heat incentive on to consumer bills. We have removed it, saving consumers £120 million a year collectively. Labour refused to cut solar feed-in tariffs, despite fixing them far too high. We took the tough decision to cut those tariffs. We were right, they were wrong. Solar deployment is up, costs are coming down, and the consumer is better off.

Luciana Berger: Will the Minister tell the House what the additional amount will be on all our bills from the Government’s miscalculation of the energy company obligation?

Gregory Barker: We have not miscalculated the ECO. It is coming very close indeed to the impact assessment that we published last year. I am happy to tell the House that costs of the ECO are continuing to come down, and we are seeing a number of technologies deployed far more cost effectively than under the poor Warm Front scheme that the Labour party put together, and which so many Members from around the House wrote to me to complain about. We are doing other things to help consumers. Our warm home discount means £135 this winter for more than 2 million poorer households.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: No, I will not.
	The winter fuel allowance is helping 12 million pensioners with up to £300 this winter. Cold weather payments have been permanently uprated to £25 per week, and the green deal ECO programme has already made more than 100,000 homes warmer and cheaper to heat and run. The first proper, independent, thoughtful review of our fuel poverty strategy for decades was completed this year. We are targeting finite resources at the most in need in the fairest, most cost-effective responsible way.
	Where Labour shrunk the domestic energy market and presided over massive corporate consolidation, we are unleashing a decentralised energy revolution on new distributors of energy on an unprecedented scale— 2.5 GW of solar alone under this coalition. Community energy, distributed energy and heat networks—all are on the up. At the same time we have begun the first new nuclear programme in a generation. Our Green Investment Bank, created by this coalition, is now up and running and transforming the energy investment landscape. No wonder Ernst and Young last week moved the UK from fifth to fourth in the global league table for renewables, and called the UK the best place in the world to invest in onshore wind.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Questions accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 220, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financial Management and Audit

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12810/12 and Addenda 1 to 4, a Commission Report on Protection of the European Union’s financial interests: Fight against fraud—Annual Report 2011, Unnumbered European Document dated 12 November 2012, European Court of Auditors’ Annual Report concerning the financial year 2011, and Unnumbered European Document dated 12 November 2012, European Court of Auditors’ Annual Report on the Activities Funded by the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) in the financial year 2011; believes that it is unacceptable that the EU budget has been given a qualified audit by the EU oversight body, the Court of Auditors, every year for the past eighteen years; agrees with the Government that when domestic governments are facing severe fiscal constraints and making tough decisions on national spending, efficient spending of EU money in a targeted way is more vital than ever; supports the Government’s decision to oppose granting discharge to the EU budget for the second time; encourages the Government to continue to work with other like-minded Member States to put pressure on the Commission and other Member States to take their responsibility for managing EU funds more seriously and to push for clear steps to be taken towards much needed improvements to the quality of EU financial management; and supports the Government’s approach of ensuring, where possible, that the EU implements the recommendations relating to EDFs advocated by the European Court of Auditors.— (Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security, Child Support, Vaccine Damage and Other Payments (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Guidance on the Making or Renewing of National Security Determinations) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Elections in 2014) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 26 June, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

EU DIRECTIVE 2007/46/EC

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Jonathan Reynolds: On behalf of my constituents, I thank you for granting me this adjournment debate, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister in advance for his response. I hope that we can achieve a positive outcome. I realise that this is a very specific topic. It is a technical and perhaps quite dry subject, and I doubt whether millions of people are at home, glued to BBC Parliament right now, but it is vital to small and medium-sized businesses whose working practices are now affected by this directive.
	The issue that I want to raise and discuss is not the directive itself, which in principle I have no issue with and which does make sense. It will improve safety standards across Europe, and open up a wider market to UK manufacturers—both things that are, of course, advantageous. I want to focus on its implementation in the UK, which I believe could be done much better. In particular, I am very concerned that no further assessment or scrutiny has been carried out since the initial impact assessment back in 2009, just before the first part of the directive was due to come into effect. However, I do not simply want to criticise; I want to work with the Minister, to tackle some of the issues. I hope that the process can be made much easier for businesses in my constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde that have contacted me about it. I would like the Government to carry out another assessment on the directive now—this is paramount—before it is fully implemented next year, to address the issues that I will present this evening.
	I have my own interest in this area. As vice-chair of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group, I work with colleagues across the House who share my passion for manufacturing. I have been keen to address this topic because it is hitting exactly the sort of businesses in my area that everyone wants to give more support to. I am talking about small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses, providing skilled, private sector jobs in the north of England.

Jim Shannon: Is this directive not another example of EU legislation adversely affecting small and medium businesses? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that if the Government do not act, there will be lay-offs and businesses closing?

Jonathan Reynolds: There is no doubt that my motivation in seeking this debate has been the news communicated to me about the impact that the implementation of the directive will have on businesses in my area. The goal of the directive is not a bad one, but if it is implemented incorrectly, there is no doubt that some manufacturers and some jobs might go.
	The directive was introduced to ensure that automotive goods—including cars, vans, lorries, trailers, caravans and so on—meet a minimum EU-wide set of regulatory, technical and safety requirements. That is entirely understandable and a good thing, in terms of both safety and potentially opening up a bigger market for our manufacturers. However, the directive has meant that manufacturers have to do much more to ensure
	that their products meet the standard, drastically altering their previous processes. Instead of needing approval to work on a certain manufacturer’s product, businesses now need approvals for different vehicles from the same manufacturer, even though the differences between models might seem minor. In the original impact assessment, back in 2009, the previous Government had two options. They chose the right option by offering a lower-cost approval scheme to businesses that wish to sell only in the UK. I am pleased that the current Government stuck to that. However, four years later, more issues are appearing, which I shall now explain in more detail.
	The first issue, unsurprisingly, is the increased costs that the directive has imposed on businesses. The number of approvals needed has spiked massively, and obtaining each type approval costs money. Whereas costs were managed by needing only a few approvals, with the new European Community whole vehicle type approval, as well as the number of approvals that come with it, costs have risen sharply and quickly. Many SMEs are struggling. I have heard reports of businesses that will either scale down the products that they offer or simply pack in altogether when the directive is fully implemented next year. That is not encouraging manufacturing—quite the opposite—and that should concern us all.
	The staff hours involved in obtaining new approvals have also risen due to the complexity, the amount of new approvals needed and the length of the process to obtain just one approval. The Federation of Small Businesses has told me that its members feel that the process is confusing and burdensome. That is particularly true of SMEs, which find the paperwork—something that they have to go through every time they want to start work on a different product, even if the differences are fairly minor—demanding and discouraging. Other areas of the business then suffer, as staff are taken away from other roles to spend what they believe to be a disproportionately large amount of time on securing type approvals.
	A lack of communication to businesses by Government and government authorities such as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency is another issue. Some businesses were not even aware of the initial impact assessment in 2009. They feel ill-informed and still in the dark about what is required from them and any help that they can receive. Businesses have told me that they feel abandoned. Some businesses have also told me about what they feel to be a lack of consistency, with the process frequently changing. One managing director described it as the “goalposts constantly being moved”. There is a lot of confusion and worry out there in the industry at the moment, which needs to be addressed.
	Let me present the House with a case study from my constituency. This issue was brought to my attention by Truck Craft Bodies Ltd—a small to medium-sized business in Stalybridge. It is deeply concerned about the effect that the directive will have on its business once it is fully implemented and about the ability of such SMEs to survive. The business has told me that it has gone from simply needing one approval per manufacturer to needing up to 30 approvals for just one manufacturer.
	Like me, the company agrees with the premise of the directive, but it is particularly concerned about the resulting costs and increased staff hours. It is also unhappy about the lack of help and support on offer. The help that it could receive from organisations such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has so far been inadequate. The Government should be speaking to companies such as Truck Craft Bodies. They are the ones in the field, and what they have to say on implementation is invaluable.
	That leads me to my main point, which is the lack of scrutiny or assessment of the directive’s implementation since the initial impact assessment more than four years ago. I am concerned that as the date for full implementation—November 2014—looms closer, the answers to a number of questions are still not known, purely because of the lack of scrutiny. First, does the system provide value for money? The Vehicle Certification Agency is the UK’s designated approval authority, and it needs to be cost-effective for the businesses that use it. Secondly, do the Government know how the implementation of the scheme is going, given that no assessment has been carried out since 2009? Are the Government aware of the problems that are being experienced by many businesses? How will they address those issues and provide further help to businesses that need it? We need to know the answers to those questions if we are going to help the SMEs that are facing a testing and uncertain time.
	The point of this debate, however, is not for me to stand here and criticise the Government. That would be unfair, especially on a matter that is so technical and complex. I want the debate to achieve positive outcomes and improvements, as my ultimate aim is to help businesses that are struggling and that are worried about the effect of the directive on their trade and their ability to survive. I have no doubt that the Minister shares that view. There are potential solutions to the problems that I have outlined so far, and I hope that the Minister will give them serious consideration.
	Most importantly, I firmly believe that the Government need to carry out another impact assessment before the directive is fully implemented in 2014, and I call on the Minister to do that at the earliest opportunity. The lack of scrutiny so far worries me deeply. This cannot wait until after the full implementation of the directive; it needs to be done as soon as possible. If we wait until 2014, it will be too late, especially as some businesses are planning to stop their current operations once the directive comes into full effect, unless there are changes. An impact assessment now would help properly to identify the hurdles that businesses are facing because of the directive, and it would do so in far greater detail than I can describe in the debate today.
	Carrying out a new, updated assessment now would have numerous benefits, and I hope that I can convince the Minister to do so. It would offer solutions and ways of dealing with the problems that the directive has caused to businesses, not to mention giving the Government an idea of how the directive’s implementation is going and an opportunity to improve it. Most importantly, it would involve the manufacturers and businesses. After all, they are the ones that are most affected; they currently feel abandoned and are not sure where to turn. This is of course their industry, and they are the ones that know it best. Overall, I believe that a new assessment should be carried out as soon as possible
	and definitely before full implementation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give that suggestion some serious thought.
	Certain specific suggestions are worthy of consideration. Indeed, any new assessment might come to similar conclusions. They include changes such as making the granting of licences easier. As previously mentioned, the VCA is the only body in the UK that can grant type approvals to SMEs that want to operate only in the UK. There is scope to funnel down the process, which at present appears top-heavy and cumbersome, to give manufacturers and businesses more involvement. That would take some of the work load off the VCA and run down costs on both sides. Businesses that I have spoken to are unhappy with the current process that the VCA operates. For example, the agency already has a lot of the information that manufacturers have to supply. The duplication that the companies have to undertake costs money and time, and seems unnecessary. Perhaps this has been overlooked, and it could be identified by a new, updated assessment.
	Furthermore, a common complaint from the industry is that the support offered to it has been found wanting. Manufacturers feel left out of the loop and abandoned, and are unhappy with the general lack of communication about a matter that is so vital to their continued existence. The Government need to communicate their plans better. It is also imperative that the Government look at the UK system and make it as easy as possible for small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, to comply with the new regulations. The FSB supports that proposal and believes that that should happen.
	Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for allowing this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I am sure that he and I both want the same thing: for manufacturing to thrive in the UK. The directive does not necessarily have to hinder manufacturing by firms such as Truck Craft Bodies. Improved safety and access to bigger markets are of course in everyone’s best interests. However, because the directive involves such a radical change from how manufacturers have previously operated, it is imperative that it should be monitored closely. That has not happened so far, as we have seen from the lack of any real assessment or scrutiny by the Government since the initial impact assessment in 2009. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take on board the suggestion to hold another assessment soon, before full implementation in 2014.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing this debate. He said in his opening remarks that he had a passion for manufacturing and for small and medium-sized enterprises, and he was generous enough to suggest that he suspected I shared those passions. He was right. He was also right that tonight’s debate provides an opportunity for us to discuss the effect on businesses of directive 2007/46/EC. I would like to thank him and his office for their assistance on some of the thoughts he might express tonight; I hope that my response will thus be more informed.
	I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has recently asked a number of questions about this directive, so I am pleased to respond to this evening’s debate. Before
	I talk about the directive, it would be right and proper to reflect on the significant progress made by the UK automotive sector. This is explained in the automotive strategy that was published in July, which was the culmination of work led by the Automotive Council. It is very encouraging for all of us to note and learn that the UK car industry is currently vibrant, particularly at a time when other European markets face significant challenges.
	The UK produced 1.58 million vehicles in 2012, with £6 billion of investment in the industry by vehicle manufacturers over the last two years. That is good news for the UK. Some challenges have been presented at ports, and I am pleased to help the industry overcome them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group—would welcome that.
	I turn, if I may, to the matter in hand. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the directive could have a detrimental effect on businesses. Just as he set out his concerns, I shall set out exactly how I think on the issue and briefly explain what the directive is all about. It concerns the approval of new road vehicles at EU level. It covers new road vehicles with four or more wheels, and there is a mandatory obligation on the UK, as on all member states, to apply its provisions.
	The directive was implemented in the UK on 29 April 2009 by the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, SI No. 717. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the key element of the directive was to establish a single European market for motor vehicles, meaning that a vehicle approved to pan-European standards can be registered anywhere within the European Union, without further testing or obstruction to placing it on the market anywhere within the EU. The dates of application depend on the vehicle category: it has already been implemented for most vehicles, and will be fully implemented in October 2014, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, for the largest goods vehicles.
	Approvals under the directive are available from member states’ approval authorities. In the UK, this means the Vehicle Certification Agency, supported by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland. Approvals are enforced through the registration scheme operated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Only motor vehicles with the appropriate certificate can be registered for use in the UK. Manufacturers can choose whether to use the UK approval authority or one from another member state for the pan-European approval.
	Approval of the directive is a regulatory simplification matter, as it avoids manufacturers having to comply with potentially 28 different sets of national regulations and requirements. On that basis, it was supported at the outset by the high-volume producers. Producers of specialist and low-volume vehicles are also covered by the small series or the individual approval schemes created by the Department. These are essential provisions and are key to helping overcome the burden of EU-wide rules for UK SMEs, and throughout the process the Department has always sought to provide clear advice and assistance to such companies. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that companies, including SMEs, have not considered that to be the case, I shall be delighted to consider his representation.
	Prior to implementation, during 2007-08, officials worked closely with the various sectors affected by the new requirements. That included hosting, in conjunction with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, a road show involving 12 events around the United Kingdom to build engagement with industry.
	At the time of the implementation of the national regulations, a full impact assessment was undertaken and published by the Department. Its objective was to determine how to implement the directive in a way that would minimise the burdens on UK businesses while maximising the safety and environmental benefits. Two options for implementation of the recast framework directive were assessed, the first being to implement only the pan-European scheme and to accept and issue only European approvals, and the second being to implement the pan-European scheme together with national schemes for small series approval and individual approvals.
	A “small firms impact test” considered the financial and business implications for the companies. Some 250 SMEs were consulted as part of a telephone survey, and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 members of an overall group of 35 SMEs that had been carefully selected from the sub-sectors to provide a representative and balanced assessment. In addition, the Department sought the views of the Small Business Service and its successor, the Enterprise Directorate, in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, as well as the views of the Federation of Small Businesses and a number of other stakeholders.
	The SMEs that were consulted advised the Department that type approval would be too onerous for some companies, and it was therefore important to have the option of national approval schemes. It was clear that the EU-wide scheme could have a fairly major adverse impact on SMEs, which are defined as businesses with fewer than 250 employees, so UK regulations were developed to incorporate option 2—the national approvals option—alongside the mandatory pan-European scheme.
	I accept that, on the face of it, the provision of national schemes under option 2 would appear to be gold-plating, as it goes beyond the EU minimum. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the last Government adopted the correct course of action, which the present Government have continued. It does have a beneficial impact on SMEs.
	I have engaged in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about Truck Craft Bodies Ltd and the effect that the directive has had on its business. As he will recall, I explained in a reply to him in May that the cost that the company had incurred for the approval of its vehicles was significantly less than the original estimate. I think he will accept the macro-point that the cost burden on UK business of accepting option 2 is significantly lower than the pan-European option would have been.
	Officials at the VCA met representatives of Truck Craft Bodies Ltd on 8 November 2012. I believe that they have supported the company and helped it to prepare the relevant documentation for its product range. Two more other site visits were made to the company’s premises in April and May 2013 to carry out approval work. The company now has seven vehicle types approved, with a fee cost for work by VCA of less than £11,000. On the basis of its current rate of production, that
	indicates an average certification cost of £18 per vehicle over three years. It is worth noting that the VCA fees are set on a cost reimbursement basis, following the public consultation. That reflects the cost of providing the approval service to industry.
	The hon. Gentleman made several comments about the impact assessment. I can assure him that the VCA does not request information that it already holds. Again, I make the offer that if he can produce evidence that the VCA has asked for information that he believes it already holds, I will be happy to consider that. However, we do not believe that the agency requests information it already holds. It is also true that every vehicle converter must have a commercial relationship with the original vehicle manufacturer, and there are competition and confidentiality issues if information supplied to one company is made freely available to another. That would have an impact on any decision to undertake a further impact assessment.
	This is a matter that the wider motor industry and trade associations may wish to address, rather than have Government create more rules or regulations. The Department and its agencies continue to work with industry, both directly and through its trade bodies, to identify any matters where there is a lack of clarity in the application of regulations or a need for administrative adjustments.
	It is important to recognise that the directive was finalised six years ago and the UK regulations were created four years ago, so the opportunity for any changes before the regulations are fully implemented is relatively minimal. However, the Government are not complacent about our commitment to removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, and if there is evidence that that is not happening I will instruct officials to redouble their efforts. Indeed, there will be a meeting between the VCA and the industry trade bodies to discuss that on 30 September.
	The hon. Gentleman should also by now have received a reply from my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about whether any funding was available to help mitigate the costs that Truck Craft Bodies Ltd has incurred. I understand that information has been provided on checking for possible sources of funding and on the business link helpline, which provides advice to those who wish to improve and grow their operations.
	To summarise, under its European obligations the UK had to implement the directive. The Department worked towards doing that in a manner which offered a high level of consultation and of assurance in respect of safety and environmental aspects, while limiting the burdens on UK businesses. There is a long history of regulating certain aspects of safety and environmental protection on road vehicles to provide a level playing field for industry, and in order to protect consumers, road users and society in general.
	I hope I have satisfactorily explained the Government’s position on the approval of new vehicles. I have invited the hon. Gentleman to write to me about any evidence he feels he has about any specific occasions, and I will be delighted to see it. We are aiming to limit the impact of the directive wherever possible. We are aiming to limit the burdens on industry, and I hope the hon.
	Gentleman will be reassured by what I have said, but if he has any further issues he wishes to raise, I will gladly respond to them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.